A student can express a religious viewpoint when it is within the scope of an assignment.

In May of 2005, at San Diego, CA, a dance teacher working for a middle school district was terminated from her job after a complaint that she used religious music in her instruction. The teacher had used some secular music and also included a classical piece by J.S. Bach, sung in Latin, and a song in Swahili which translated “Praise God.”

Again, this teacher's termination was contrary to the law.

California law allows instructors to use references to religion while teaching and this law specifically includes dance instruction.

Public school districts in America have literally been intimidated by what they erroneously believe, that no teacher or student in public school in America may mention God or religion in any way.

These two cases, and many others if time permitted, illustrate how decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court have incorrectly restricted the free exercise of religious freedom in America.

I am here today to explain how Congress has the authority to rein in a runaway U.S. Supreme Court and allow people of faith to express their individual religious faith.

Some of you may know that I served in the House of Representatives from 1979-1992. In many of those years I sponsored legislation very similar to this present legislation entitled S520 and HR1070, introduced as “The Constitution Restoration Act of 2005.” It was a frustrating experience to time and again be unsuccessful in getting a hearing in the House Judiciary Committee on the legislation I proposed, and of course no floor vote was possible without committee action.

It is important at the outset to put in perspective the issue we are here to discuss. Very simply, America for the past half century has been engaged in a Cultural War in which the opponents in the war for the hearts of men are those who profess and teach that God exists and those who deny it.

From 1789 to 1947, a little over a century and a half, if you asked the leaders of America in any segment of our society, Religion, Medicine, Law, Business, Labor, Academia or Government, what was the foundation which guided the American experiment in self government? In large majorities, the response would be the Bible, God’s Word to mankind.

In 1920, Roger Baldwin organized the ACLU. A co-founder was Crystal Eastman, a Jewish feminist lesbian. Baldwin was a Socialist, some said he was a Communist, and he hated Capitalism. He believed that Christianity was the belief system that was the cornerstone of Capitalism and so the stated goal of Baldwin was to destroy Christianity and in so doing, destroy Capitalism. Understanding why the ACLU was formed can help all of us understand why today the ACLU is in the forefront of the battle to remove God from our culture. If there is no God, there is no Christianity.

Other organizations which have joined the current effort to remove God from any aspect of American life are People For the America Way (The Hollywood Left Crowd) and the National Education Association. (NEA).

The NEA is one of the most powerful unions in America and the tragedy for all of us is that the leadership of this organization has directed public education at the primary and secondary level in America to such a deplorable state that in the mid-1980’s a Presidential commission concluded that what we collectively have allowed to come about in our public schools if done by a foreign power would be considered an act of war.

The media, print and TV are mostly on the side of advancing the philosophy of Secular Humanism, which Supreme Court Justice Stewart in a 1963 opinion defined to be a religion in that it denies the existence of God.

Decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, sometimes by a razor thin 5-4 majority, have in the last half century erroneously interpreted the First Amendment to in effect steal the Biblical foundation on which America was founded.

A short list of some of these decisions is as follows:

Enacting “a wall of separation between church and state”

(Everson v. Board of Education, 1947)

Banning nondenominational prayer from public schools

(Engel v. Vitale, 1962)

Removing the Ten Commandments from public school walls

(Stone v. Graham, 1980)

Striking down a “period of silence not to exceed one minute…for mediation or voluntary prayer”

(Wallace v. Jaffree, 1985)

Censoring creationist viewpoints when evolutionist viewpoints are taught

(Edwards v. Aguillard, 1987)

Barring prayers at public school graduations

(Lee v. Weisman, 1992)

The seminal decision which charted the direction which the U.S. Supreme Court pursues to this day, namely that God does not exist in America, was Everson v. Board of Education decided in 1947. Justice Black wrote a majority opinion in which he concluded his opinion with a phrase, “Separation of Church and State.”

This phrase has a correct meaning to the extent that no level of government, federal, state or local, may impose a religion on any person in America. The phrase has incorrectly been interpreted to preclude the free exercise of religious expression by people of different faiths and beliefs in America.

Children in public schools in America have been precluded from engaging in voluntary spoken prayer since 1962. The effect on America has been devastating in that for two generations we have taught children in public schools in America that God does not exist. And we wonder why our culture is in the sewer!

In June, 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court issued one of the most bizarre decisions of all time when by a 5-4 majority it decided that a display of the Ten Commandments in a public square in Texas passed constitutional muster but the same Ten Commandments could not be displayed on the walls of a courthouse in Kentucky.

Congress has the authority under Article III, Sec. 2.2 of the U.S. Constitution to except certain subject matter from the jurisdiction of the U.S. Supreme Court. Legislation has been introduced in the Senate and the House in this Congress to use this authority.

S520 and HR1070 are identical bills and are called The Constitution Restoration Act of 2005. These bills will allow:

(1) Voluntary prayer in public schools

(2) Displaying the Ten Commandments in public places

(3) Retain “God” in the Pledge of Allegiance.

(4) Retain “In God We Trust” as the national motto.

I will at the conclusion of my remarks today suggest how you can assist in securing the passage of this legislation in this Congress.

No one should be discouraged by the recitation of the foregoing political forces in America that are opposed to the enactment in this Congress of S520 and HR1070.

Since the removal of prayer and the Ten Commandments in public schools, American public opinion has with majorities in excess of 75% of both Democrats and Republicans wanted these practices reinstated. Such being the case, why has Congress failed to get the deed done? The answer to this question necessarily involves a review of how the leadership of the two major parties in America votes on this issue.

The leadership of the Democratic Party, elected members of Congress, has abandoned the vast majority of the people registered in the Democratic party in America and given their votes in Congress on this issue to the ACLU, People For the American Way and the NEA.

For example, in 1998, in the House of Representatives, we brought a Constitutional Amendment to a vote in the House, HJ Res. 78, to allow voluntary prayer in public schools. 87.7% of the Republicans and 13.4% of the Democrats voted for it which means that 12.3% of the Republicans voted no along with 86.6% of the Democrats against the measure. It passed by a majority of 224-203, but not the required two-thirds. The Senate did not vote on the measure at all.

Since 1962 when the U.S. Supreme Court removed prayer from public schools, the House of Representatives has voted only twice. Once in 1998 and previously in 1971 when the legislation to allow prayer in school passed 240-162.

Also since 1962, the U.S. Senate has voted only once on this issue, in 1984, when the proposal lost by a one vote margin in the Senate. It should be recalled that during the first six years of the Reagan Presidency, the Republicans controlled the U.S. Senate but not the House of Representatives.

In 1994, the people of America turned over control of both Houses of Congress to the Republican Party as a result of the Contract with America strategy.

The 109th Congress began its work in January, 2005. The Senate has a majority of 55 Republicans, 44 Democrats and one Independent. The House has a majority of 232 Republicans, 202 Democrats and 1 Independent. This Congress, the 109th, with a Republican majority in both Houses and a Republican in the White House is the first time since the theft of our Biblical heritage began in 1962 by decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court that we Americans have political leadership in power in Washington with the opportunity to make very clear that God exists in America. We should not allow this historic opportunity to be squandered.

I am happy to report that 27 leaders of the political activists in the Evangelical community in America signed a letter in January 2004, asking this Congress to adopt what is contained in S520 and HR1070. The key to getting it passed in this Congress is to get the first vote in the Senate. In 2004, and 2005, I have spoken with 22 members of the Senate and the chief staff person of almost all of the other 78 members of the Senate about enacting S520 and HR1070.

Our movement needs to light a fire under the Senate leadership to get them to pass this legislation.

Getting Congress to act at this point in our history raises a simple question for all of us. Who is in charge of our federal government? The elected members of Congress and the President, or is the claim by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel correct when he says that Israel controls the political destiny of America?

There may be some truth in this claim by Prime Minister Sharon when we reflect on the fact that at a recent AIPAC dinner in Washington, D.C., half of the senators and ? of the House members attended. AIPAC is the Number One lobby for Israel in America.

All of us need to think about what is going on in America. On October 16, 2004, President Bush signed into law the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act. It establishes a special department within the U.S. State Department to monitor global anti-Semitism around the world, reporting annually to Congress.

These are definitions of Anti-Semitism which would be reportable under this law:

1. Any assertion “that the Jewish community controls government, the media, international business and the financial world” is anti-Semitic.

2. “Strong anti-Israel sentiment” is anti-Semitic.

3. “Virulent criticism” of Israel’s leaders, past or present, is anti-Semitic. According to the State Department, anti-Semitism occurs when a swastika is portrayed in a cartoon decrying the behavior of a past or present Zionist leader. Thus, a cartoon that includes a swastika to criticize Ariel Sharon’s brutal 2002 invasion of the West Bank, raining “hell-fire” missiles on hapless Palestinian men, women and children, is anti-Semitic. Similarly, when the word “Zionazi” is used to describe Sharon’s saturation bombing in Lebanon in 1982 (killing 17,500 innocent refugees), it is also “anti-Semitic.”

4. Criticism of the Jewish religion or its religious leaders or literature (especially the Talmud and Kabbalah) is anti-Semitic.

5. Criticism of the U.S. government and Congress for being under undue influence by the Jewish-Zionist community (including AIPAC) is anti-Semitic.

6. Criticism of the Jewish-Zionist community for promoting globalism (the “New World Order”) is anti-Semitic.

7. Blaming Jewish leaders and their followers for inciting the Roman crucifixion of Christ is anti-Semitic.

8. Diminishing the “six million” figure of Holocaust victims is anti-Semitic.

9. Calling Israel a “racist” state is anti-Semitic.

10. Asserting that there exists a “Zionist Conspiracy” is anti-Semitic.

11. Claiming that Jews and their leaders created the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia is anti-Semitic.

12. Making “derogatory statements about Jewish persons” is anti-Semitic.

13. Denying spiritually disobedient Jews the biblical right to re-occupy Palestine is anti-Semitic.

14. Alleging that Mossad was behind the 9/11 attack is anti-Semitic.

Please note that Jesus Christ would be guilty of #4. Any preacher in a Christian church who reads the New Testament account of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ violates #7.

Matthew 5:20: “For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.”

Matthew 23: 13-36 describes how Jesus condemned Jewish religious leaders or literature contained in the Talmud and Kabbalah.

Mark 15:9-26 describes how the Jewish leaders caused the resident Roman leader – Pilate – to order the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.

Make no mistake about it. The ultimate goal of this legislation is to turn anyone who utters an anti-Semitic remark into a “domestic terrorist.”

Some of the major supporters of the State of Israel are many of the leaders of the Evangelical churches in America. They interpret the Bible to conclude that the Zionist Jews are entitled to hold possession of the Holy Land because God gave them this land in perpetuity in Genesis 15:18.

In very recent days, various Israelis were asked where they got the right to occupy Palestine. Each invariably said words to the effect that “God gave it to us.”

One of the texts cited to prove this claim is Genesis 15:18, King James Version (KJV):

In the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the quiet river, the river Euphrates.

To illustrate how translators have re-written the Bible to justify the legitimacy of this claim by Israelis, read how verse 18 has been written in the New King James version of the Bible:

On the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram saying: To your descendants I have given this land from the river of Egypt to the great river, the River Euphrates.

The word “seed” in the King James version a singular noun, has been re-written as “descendants” a plural noun. Why, the answer is in Galatians 3:16.:

Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, and to seeds, as of many, but as of one. And to thy seed which is Christ.

Galatians 3:16 uses the word “seed,” a singular noun, to make very clear that a believer in Christ is the seed of Abraham. The use of the plural noun “descendants” makes it impossible to reach the same conclusion.

At the time of Jesus Christ, the leaders of the organized church, the Scribes and Pharisees, were called Judeans. After the sixteenth century, in the Geneva Bible, and after the seventeenth century in the King James Bible, this word “Judeans” was incorrectly shortened by the translators to the word “Jew.” The vast majority of Jews are not believers in, nor followers of, Jesus Christ. Thus, they are not heirs of Abraham, according to Galatians 3:16, unless they believe in Jesus Christ.

Who are Abraham’s seed is further defined in Galatians 3:28-29:

There is neither Jews not Greek slave or free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

When the Jews rejected Jesus Christ and called for the crucifixion of Jesus they forfeited the right to claim to be the heirs of the seed of Abraham and to continue to occupy the land described in Genesis 15:18.

John 4:22 in both the King James version and the New King James version is sometimes quoted for the claim that salvation is of the Jews, with these words:

You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews.

The proper translation of John 4:22 is:

You worship what you do not know; we know we worship, for salvation is OUT OF Judea.

Gordon Ginn, PhD, in his excellent monograph, “The Lion of Judah,” describes how the translators have incorrectly translated the Greek word “ek” (Strong’s Concordance #1537) here used in John 4:22. The proper translation of this preposition is “out of” and not “of.” Every other time this word “ek” is used, it is translated “out of” except for the text in question, John 4:22, where it is improperly translated simply “of.”

The source of salvation is not “the Jews.” The source of salvation is Jesus Christ, who was “out of” Judea, because He was born in Bethlehem of Judea. Jesus Christ was “out of” Judea, and Jesus Christ, not the Jews, is the source of Salvation!

In Matthew 2:6, “And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, art not the least among the princes of Judah; for OUT OF (ek #1537) thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.”

Also, Micah 5:2, “And thou, Bethlehem, house of Ephratha, art few in number to be reckoned among the thousands of Judah, yet OUT OF (ek #1537) thee shall one come forth to me, to be a ruler of Israel; and His going forth were from the beginning, even from eternity.”

Again in Hebrews 7:14 “For it is evident that our Lord sprang OUT OF (ek #1537) Judea.

These three references clearly show that when the translators arbitrarily translated ek (#1537) as “OF” in John 4:22, rather than OUT OF, as they did in three previous Scriptural texts, they had another agenda in mind, specifically to create a text in Scripture which could be used to claim that “salvation is of the Jews,” rather than the correct interpretation of John 4:22 which should read, salvation is out of Judah or Judea.

Zionism is defined by the Jewish people as their right to have the land of Palestine as their homeland. What the world-wide Zionist Jews, including those presently living in Palestine will never be willing to admit is that when their cultural predecessors plotted, instigated and called for, the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, they no longer had the right to the land of Palestine. They turned their back on their Messiah, and the Messiah of all mankind, and thus, were rejected as “God’s Chosen People.”

Genesis 49:10 describes the consequences of this rejection very clearly:

The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh (the Messiah) came, and into him shall the gathering of the people be.”

The believers in Jesus Christ, wherever they may be found, are the new Israel, a spiritual body of people that is not identified with any particular geographical location. The first grant of land by God was physical, observable by human senses. The second creation of a body of people is spiritual, which can only be spiritually discerned.

The Evangelical Christian community is well aware of the many attempts by the ACLU to destroy Christianity. The Evangelicals view the methods and goals of the ACLU with contempt. Yet, one of the major beliefs of the Evangelical Christian community is that the present-day Jews, including those in the State of Israel, are “God’s Chosen People.”

However, the Evangelical Christian community does not seem to be aware that the ACLU was founded by, and still continues to be run by, the Zionist Jewish leaders in America. These Zionist Jews that the Evangelical community supports whole-heartedly, financially as well as doctrinally, are the very same Zionist Jews who are running the ACLU, whose goal is to destroy Christianity!

Evangelical Christians, including their leaders, do not understand that money collected for Israel is funneled to various Jewish organizations, including the ACLU, the goal of which is to destroy Christianity.

Are the present-day Jews, indeed, God’s “Chosen People?”

If these Evangelical leaders were correctly reading the Bible, it would hopefully result in the American political leadership, Congress and the President, being persuaded to encourage Israel to pursue a peace process in the Middle East which would recognize and affirm the rights of the Palestinians in this region of the world.

Since the new Israel consists of the believers in Jesus Christ wherever they may be found in the world, it is predictable that the Israeli lobby will oppose S520 and HR1070 because the provisions of this legislation acknowledge that God exists and will allow Christian people of different religious persuasions to enjoy the freedom of religious expression guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Stated another way, if a major ally of the State of Israel, the Evangelical leaders of America, would come to a correct interpretation of the Bible and accordingly lessen their support for the State of Israel, it would diminish the overall clout of Israel’s lobby in Washington, D.C., and enhance the chance for passage of S520 and HR1070 as well as other matters, namely the peace process in the Middle East.

Enclosed with the written material that has been distributed to each of you is a proposed Resolution to be adopted by your State legislature, your home town City Council, and your local County governing body.

You are all political activists in this room and believe me when I say that we need to build a fire under the Senators in the Republican party who enjoy a 55 vote majority in that chamber of Congress. Congress responds to local pressure from their home state area far more than to persons or political organizations outside their home states.

September 17, 2005

William E. Dannemeyer

Member House of Representatives, 1979-1992