This is Chapter 9/Section 2, of the 2024 Serialization of the third printing (2013) of the book by Steven Jonas: "The 15% Solution: How the Republican Religious Right Took Control of the U.S., 1981-2022. The book was first published in 1996. The 2013 version of the book (the most recent one) is available on Amazon, in print and on Kindle, at: Click Here .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introductory note: The principal function of this Amendment was to remove the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land. Subject to a declaration by the President, or the Congress by a 2/3's vote of both Houses, the "Law of God" would be superior to it. The Amendment, its interpretation, and the beginnings of its implementation, all rather complex matters, are explained at length in this chapter. Two particular points, here. One, this Amendment begins to pave the way for the establishment of a Dictatorship (which comes later in this "future-history"). Second (remembering that the book was originally published in 1996), the views of one Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas are cited as authority for this Amendment and its outcomes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 33rd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (2007):
Section 1. Article 6 of this Constitution in its entirety is amend ed to read as follows:
This constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made pursu ant thereto shall be the supreme law of the land, except when the President, or the Congress by a majority vote of both houses, shall declare the Law of God to be superi or to it. Article 1 section 7 of this constitution shall apply to any Con gressional decision in this matter. Con gress may over turn a Presidential deci sion in this matter by a two-thirds vote in both houses.
All Federal judges and the judges in ev ery state shall be bound by the provisions of this amendment, any thing in the constitu tion or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstand ing. No Federal or state court may judge any act or action tak en under this Amendment for its constitution ality.
The senators and representatives before-mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this constitution; religious tests may be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
Section 2. Neither Congress, nor any Federal court, nor any state or local government or other agency supported by tax rev enues may pro hibit organized or voluntary prayer or other rea sonable religious devo tion in any public educational institution.
Author's Commentary [1]
First, the 33rd Amendment, generally referred to as the "Su prema cy Amendment," set some unspecified "Law of God" above the law of the Constitution. While the latter was written down in the original docu ment and in many Supreme Court decisions made pursuant to it, the specification of just what "God's Law" was left to the President and the Congress.
The Amendment also extended the substance of the Supreme Court's decision in Anderson v. United States, permitting both "or ga nized" and "voluntary" prayer in schools. (Incorporating a "school prayer amend ment" into the Constitution had been part of the old Re publican Party's national platform as least far back as 1992 [RNC]). And, it permitted the establishment by the Federal government and the states of religious tests for office.
Further, the Amendment was almost as important for what it re moved from the Constitution as for what it added. In redoing Article 6 of the Constitution, the 33rd deleted the clause of the origi nal that re ferred to the pre-Constitution debts of the predecessor governments of the United States, assuming them as obligations.
That specific matter had long since become moot. But the dele tion gave certain people pause for thought as to what the American government's attitude towards some or all of its debts might be at some time in the future. Section 4 of the 14th Amendment had specifically declared debts of the 19th century Confederate States of America not to be debts of the United States. Was something simi lar brewing here? Future events would prove the concerns about the attitude of future U.S. and successor governments towards past debt to be quite valid.
The primary purpose of the Amendment, however, was to place into the Constitution the concept that there was some freestanding, encoded, "Law of God" (sometimes referred to as "Natural Law") that could somehow be defined by the President and/or the Con gress, stand ing above the Constitution. The campaign for the adop tion of the con cept as a part of the foundation of the American legal system went well back into the Transition Era.
For example, the first black Right-Wing Reactionary Supreme Court Justice, Clarence Thomas, when justifying his rejection of the very modest Transition Era attempts to rectify institutionalized racial discrim ination against blacks in employment and educational opportuni ty, called "affirmative action," said that "God's law" compelled him to do it (White). And he specified the God-concept he was thinking of too: "You can not embrace racism to deal with racism. It's not Chris tian."
On the Separation of Church and State
The prohibition of religious tests for candidacy for public offices had been a vital component of the "wall of separation between church and state" that was a central feature of the old U.S. Constitution. Elim inating that wall or trying to prove that it never ex isted in the first place was a major goal of Right-Wing Reaction, finally achieved by the adop tion of the 33rd Amendment. As the Rev. Pat Rob ertson had said in November, 1993 (Foxman):
"They have kept us in submission because they have talked about sepa ration of church and state [2]. There is no such thing in the Constitution. It's a lie of the left, and we're not going to take it anymore."
In 1993 also, a group called "Concerned Women of America" had articulated this position thusly (Glasser): "Christian values should domi nate our gov ernment. Politicians who do not use the Bible to guide their public and private lives do not belong in office."
Early in the history of the Republic (and in one instance, quite well into it) certain states had imposed religious testing for candidacy for office (Menendez). For example, despite the fact that the Mary land state Constitution, adopted in 1776, acknowledged the "duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most accept able," in that State candidates for public office were required to declare "a belief in the Christian religion."
It was not until 1826, following a lengthy campaign by a Scottish Presbyterian immigrant named Thomas Kennedy for what his opponents called the "Jew bill," that Jews were permitted to stand for election in Maryland. New Hampshire, known during the Transition Era as one of the bastions of Right-wing Reaction in the Northeast, did not remove its last religious test provision until 1968!
The "Cultural Civil War"
Having a free, open, debate on such subjects as the nature of the family and what constitutes healthy sexual behavior, with the possibility that in a pluralistic society there could be more than one "right" an swer, was beyond the ken of the Religious Right. To them, there was only one possible right answer to such questions, and they already had it. For Right-wing Reaction, establishing the supremacy of "God's Law" was essential to winning what they viewed as the "cultural civil war" in which they saw the country engaged. Presented here are some of the voices of Right-wing Reaction from the Transi tion Era on the subject.
On the battle between the "religion" and "anti-religion," listen to Newton Gingrich, the famous Speaker of the House from 1995 onwards and patron of J.D. Hague (Blumenthal):
"[There is a] battleground about the nature of the American future [be tween the God-fearing and the godless]. I do have a vision of an America in which a belief in the Creator is once again at the center of defining being an American, and that is a radically different vision of America than the secular anti-religious view of the left. . . . Frankly, history is an on-going rebuke to secular left-wing values. They can't afford to teach history, because it would destroy the core vision of a hedonistic, existentialist America in which there is no past and there is no future."
Don Feder, a syndicated columnist, self-described "Jewish Conservative," in fact a leading figure of co-opted Jewish Right-wing Reaction, said (1994):
"A cultural civil war is raging across our nation. Arrayed on one side is society's cultural elite (those who command the nation's idea genera tors): the professoriate, the media (news and entertainment), most elect ed officials, the bureaucracy, corporate America (when it deigns to take sides), the mainline Prote tant churches, as well as most foundations.
"On the other side are a handful of family activists [sic], social conservatives, a definite minority in academia, a few em battled officeholders, and iconoclastic commentators. Engagements are fought in editorial pages, in high school and college classrooms, and legislative hearing rooms, as well as on TV/radio talk shows. Territory is gained or lost at polling places. The prize is the soul of Middle America.
"The outcome of this debate will determine whether the paganizing of America will proceed apace or, as a society, we will rediscover traditional values."
Feder's "traditional values" had nothing to do with those of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights, such as freedom of thought, freedom to worship or not worship, and tolerance of difference. Rather he was a follower of those on the Religious Right, as highlighted for example by Gingrich and Robertson, who would for everyone prescribe certain ways of thinking, acting, and being, and proscribe others. Events showed that, whether to their surprise or not, Gingrich, Robertson, Feder and their cohorts would win the "cultural civil war" Feder described.
At the start of the "cultural battle" Right-Wing Reaction was far stronger than the "left." The latter, in various stages of disarray continuously from the time of the civil rights and anti-Vietnam War struggles of the 1960s, was far weaker than people like Feder ever admitted. (It is possible, but unlikely, that the mouthpieces of Right-Wing Reaction were in fact as paranoid as they so often sounded and thus really were incapable of knowing that they held most of the cards). But with the ratification of the Supremacy Amendment, Right-Wing Reaction had achieved the final destruction of the Constitutional barriers separating church and state that had existed whether Robertson thought they were real or not. That destruction had been a principal goal of Right-Wing Reaction from early in the Transition Era.
(Of course, subsequently, when it became clear to the American people as a whole that the victory of Right-Wing Reaction in the "cultural civil war" meant the end to traditional American Constitutional democracy, a Second [military] Civil War would be fought. From that War, as readers of this book know well, the forces of traditional American Constit tional government would ultimately emerge victorious.)
On the "Law of God"
On the specifics of the supremacy of "God's Law" over that of man, listen once again to Pat Robertson (1991):
"According to the word of God, we will not have universal peace, we will not have equity . . . until the world gives God's people in their midst the place that is due them, which is the head and not the tail . . . We will see the standard of Biblical values raised over this land . . . . [T]hose who have mocked you and cursed you and cast your people out as evil will be put down."
And to Bob Weiner, President, Marantha Campus Ministries (1991):
"The Bible says we are to rule. If you don't rule and I don't rule, the atheists, the humanists, and the agnostics are going to rule. We should be that head of our school board. We should be the leaders of our nation. We should be the editors of our newspapers. We should be taking over every area of life."
And to the Rev. Tim LaHaye of the American Coalition for Traditional Values (Buchanan): "The problem with America is . . . we do not have enough of God's ministers running the country."
Keith Fournier, the Executive Director of the Christian Coalition's "American Center for Law and Justice," said it a bit more eloquently, but the meaning was the same (1995):
"The way of the Christian Church recognizes the God-given unalienable rights to life, liberty, and property. A way that has in fact given birth to true economic liberty and a free enterprise system that is tempered by compassion and infused with an understanding of social responsibility. . . . The way of the church is set in radical contradiction and prophetic distinction to the way of the individual or the way of the state. . . . It holds the state responsible to a higher law."
The little-known "guru" of the Religious arm of Right-Wing Reaction, a close colleague of the Reverends Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, was one R.J. Rushdooney (Boston, 1988). Rushdooney was the leader of "Christian Reconstructionism," a movement whose theology was based on "theonomy," literally "God's law." Thus Christian Re onstructionism was a religion, or religious theory, focused almost e tirely on state power and its use.
Rushdooney pulled no punches in advocating a modern theocracy (Boston):
"Only God is the Lord or sovereign. The modern state claims sovereignty therefore sets itself up in the place of God. The sovereign is the source of law and for us only God can be the ultimate source of law, not any human agency."
And:
"The Christian must realize that pluralism is a myth. God and his law must rule all nations."
Finally, a late-Transition Era right-wing political party, the U.S. Taxpayers Party, had this to say in the Preamble to its National Plat form (Abramsky):
"[We ask for] the blessing of the Lord God as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of this Nation, [and know that the U.S. Con stitution] is rooted in Biblical law."
On "Innerancy"
Now, according to Rushdooney, just what is "God's law" and who were sup posed to deliver the message to the people? Why a book called the Bible, that he and many other Right-Wing Reactionary religious figures of the time described as "inerrant." "Inerrant" meant to them that Biblical statements were to be taken literally and that what ever it says is right, correct, and true, that is, according to their interpretations, of course. Further, in the view of Rushdooney and his ilk, these Biblical statements were to be controlling of all human behavior [3].
One problem for the Innerantists was that there were a fair number of different translations of the original Hebrew and Greek Biblical texts, in some cases carrying widely different meanings (Niebuhr). The Right-Wing Religious types generally felt that the King James Version of the Bible was the authoritative one, apparently because it conformed to their male-centered, authoritarian view of the world and the "word of God" (Williams). However, that there were numerous translations of the Bible, meant that while they were able to cite the "word of God" on many is sues, they never were able to come up with the Word of God on just what, exactly, in English, were the words of God, on many issues.
That detail seemed to trouble them not, however. As the field ma ual of the Free Militia, a paramilitary group that closely associated itself with the Religious Right said (TFW): "The Bible is word for word the word of God. Therefore, it is completely true and without any errors. This is what we mean by Innerancy." But even given that there might be some agreement on exactly which translation of the Bible was "God's translation," who would tell the people just what the "inerrant" mean ing of any giv en statement in the Bible is? Why those who claim to know -- like Rushdooney, for example.
Compounding all of this, the Religious Right would have imposed their position on all human beings, whether or not believers in the Bible. However, the Supremacy Amendment was as far as they were able to get. Try as they might, the primacy of Biblical Law, as they interpreted it, was one concept the Religious Right was never able to get into the Constitution. J.D. Hague was not about to give up control of the country's civil and criminal legal system to "a bunch of f*cking preachers," as he was known to refer to them privately.
In any case, the Bible's text is not unambiguous. It is, rather, in many places quite ambiguous, self-contradictory, and wide ly open to interpretation (as well as inaccurate historica ly) (Fox). Nevertheless, according to the promoters of the theory of "inerrancy," what the Bible "innerantly" says and means is just what, and only what, the human claimant that it is inerrant says that it says and means.
However, even among the supporters and promoters of the theory of "Biblical inerrancy," there were many, sometimes fierce, internal debates as to just what the Bible "innerantly" meant. For example, a strongly anti-Semitic Right-Wing Reactionary preacher of the Transition Era, one Pastor Peter J. Peters (1994), held up the "inerrant" Bible as the complete justification for his doctrine. At the same time, the Right-Wing Reactionary Reverends Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, certainly claiming to be anything but anti-Semitic, also cited the "inerrant" Bible to support their doctrines.
As was often his wont, Dino Louis came at the subject of "inerrancy" from a perspective not shared by too many others. A short, previously unpublished essay of his from 1997 on one aspect of the subject is presented here.
On "Inerrancy," Creationism, and Evolution
By Dino Louis
Inerrancy: "the Bible means what it says, and that's it." Further, ac cording to its promoters, "inerrancy" means that the Bible is literally "the word of the Lord." In use, however, "inerrancy" means no more and no less than: "the Bible says what I say it means, that's it, and that's that." In this light comes consideration of the question of whether or not creationism rather than, or at least next to, evolution science, should be taught in the schools [3].
There is nothing inconsistent between the theory of evolution and belief in God. Many supporters of evolution theory do believe in God. They hold simply that evolution is the means God has used and uses to create life and control its progress through history and changing conditions on Earth. From their perspective, the Bible, even if it is the word of God, and some believing evolutionists hold that it is, is not to be taken literally from anyone's perspective.
For example, in 1994 an organization called the Lexington (KY) Alliance of Religious Leaders is sued the following statement (Scott):
"As religious leaders we share a deep faith in God who created heaven and earth and all that is in them, and take with ut most seriousness the Biblical witness to this God who is our creator. However, we find no incompatibility between the God of creation and a theory of evolution which uses universally verifiable data to explain the probable process by which life developed into its present form."
For the Fundamentalists the problem with this kind of thinking is that evolution science is completely in consistent with the theory of "inerrancy." For if the story of Creation is just a story, or an allegory, or even a moral but non-literal presentation of evolution science, then everything and anything in the Bible could be just a story or an allegory or a moral but non-literal presentation.
If that is the case, if the Bible is not "inerrant" in the sense that it should not or need not be taken literally in anyone's interpretation, the whole basis of American Fundamentalism and the politico-theological basis of the Religious Right crumbles instantly.
First of all, the Bible becomes open to interpretation by any one, not just those religious figures who claim that their interpretation reflects "inerrancy." Second of all, if that is the case, what justification can there be for putting any one religious figure's moral views into laws that become binding on everyone whether they are believers or not?
The usual justification given for doing so is: "the Bible says it's so, so we must put the force of law behind it." But in the absence of "inerrancy," that justification falls apart. Third of all, if the Bible is open to interpretation by anyone, and if all or part of the Bible may just be a collection of stories/allegories, why should it be accorded the status of "Natural Law" and placed above the Constitution as controlling human behavior?
The Bible is, of course, nothing more, or less, than a collection of stories, myths, fables, genealogical tables, wise sayings, moral instructions from one perspective or another, insightful observations on human existence and the human comedy, helpful hints for healthy living, helpful guides to civil life, some history-- both real and fanciful, prejudices of the literate classes, and old-time civil and criminal law dressed up in religious trappings. In both the Old and New Testaments, great parts are based on recollection and oral tradition, e.g., the first description of the life of Christ (what is called the "Passion of Christ" by believers) was not written down until approximately 100 years after his death.
The Bible is an interesting and sometimes useful book that has benefited from an extraordinarily successful marketing pro gram over the centuries. But the claim that its story about Creation must be taught in the schools as an equal of evolution science is not based on the utility of the Creation story to help people understand anything. Rather, it is based on the necessity of being taught as reflecting reality, if "inerrancy" is to be established for all the other parts of the Bible.
For if the "inerrancy" of even this one section of the Bible can be brought into question, then the "inerrancy" of any other section could be brought into question as well. And that is why the campaign to gain educational legitimization of the Creation story, to go so far as to even label this religious fable itself as "science," is so important to the Religious Right. [End of the Louis essay.]
The Catholic View of the "Law of God"
As a final authority on the proposition that the "Law of God" stands supreme to any law of man (including the old United States Constitution), its sup porters could quote the Roman Catholic Pope John Paul II. In a "Papal Encyclical" [5] supporting the position that there is no such thing as freedom of choice in the outcome of pregnancy, he said (Keeler):
"Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, and in communion with the Bishops of the Catholic Church, I confirm that the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral [4]. No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the Law of God."
And why is such "an act" "contrary to the Law of God" in the Pope's eyes? Because, using the circular reasoning common among the Right-wing Religious leaders of the time, he knew for sure (in some way or another that he did not share with his readers) that it was, and be cause he said so.
And so, to the direction of its future by this kind of thinking was the old United States condemned. The campaign to sunder the Constitutional separation of church and state in the old U.S. had commenced in earnest at the beginning of the Transition Era. That campaign finally realized its objective in full with the adoption of the 33rd Amendment.
On Separation of Church and State, Revisited
Some think it odd that perhaps the best counter to the arguments of Right-wing Reaction on the matter was given some 20 years before the beginning of the Transition Era by the first Catholic President of the old United States, John Fitzgerald Kennedy (1960):
"I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute-- where no Catholic prelate would tell the President, should he be a Catholic, how to act, and no Protestant minister should tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference, and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.
"I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant, nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accepts instruction on public policy from the pope, the National Council of Churches, or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials; and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.
"For, while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been, and may someday be again, a Jew -- or a Quaker -- or a Unitarian -- or a Baptist [6]. It was Virginia's harassment of Baptist preachers, for example, that helped lead to Jefferson's Statute of Religious Freedom. Today, I may be the victim, but tomorrow it may be you, until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped at a time of great national peril.
"Finally, I believe in an America where religious in tolerance will some day end; where all men and all churches are treated as equal; where every man has the same right to attend or not at tend the church of his choice; where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind; and where Catholics, Protestants, and Jews, at both the lay and pastoral level, will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their works in the past, and pro mote instead the American ideal of brotherhood."
Amen.
References:
Abramsky, S., "Taxpayers Revolt?" In These Times, January 22, 1996, p. 10.
ADL: Anti-Defamation League, The Religious Right: The Assault on Tolerance & Pluralism, New York: 1994.
Blumenthal, S., "The Newt Testament," The New Yorker, November 21, 1994, p. 7.
Boston, R., "Thy Kingdom Come," Church & State, Sept., 1988, p. 6.
Boston, R., Why the Religious Right is Wrong about Separation of Church and State, Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1993.
Buchanan, J., "In the Name of God," People for the American Way Quarterly Report, Fall, 1984, p. 3.
Feder, D., "The Paganizing of America," Law and Justice (ACLJ), Vol. 3, No. 1, 1994.
Fournier, K.A., "The Third Way," Law and Justice, Vol. 4, No. 3, 1995.
Fox, R.L., The Unauthorized Version, New York: Knopf, 1991.
Foxman, A.H., Fund-raising letter, New York: Anti-Defamation League, Jan., 1994.
TFW: The Freedom Writer, "Biblical inspiration and authority," June, 1995, p. 3.
Glasser, I., letter to "ACLU Guardians of Liberty," Sept. 29, 1993.
Keeler, B., "Papal Creed," Newsday, March 31, 1995.
Kennedy, J.F., "On the Separation of Church and State," Greater Houston (Texas) Ministerial Association, September 12, 1960.
Menendez, A.J., "No Religious Test, Part Two: States' Rights, Religious Wrongs," Church & State, May, 1987, p. 8.
Niebuhr, G., "'In Other Words': Bible's Evolving Language," New York Times, December 23, 1995, p. 1.
Peters, P.J., "The Religious Racket in America," Vol. III, "Thoughts on Love," Vol. IV, Scriptures for America, (LaPorte, CO) 1994.
RNC, Republican National Committee, The Republican Platform, 1992, Washington, DC: August 17, 1992, p. 10.
Robertson, P., "Benediction," "Road to Victory" Christian Coalition Confer ence, November, 1991.
Scott, E.C., "Creationism: The Growing Threat," Freedom Writer, September, 1994, p. 1.
Weiner, B., interview, KFCB, California, quoted in Wipfler, W., "The Religious Right: Sanctification of a Political Agenda," 1991.
White, R., "Protest Target: Judge's House," Newsday, September 12, 1995.
Williams, A., "Re-Authoring a Better Bible?" Jerry Falwell's National Liberty Journal, January, 1996.
Author's Notes:
1. There is no indication or evidence that any of the historical figures or organizations quoted in this chapter, some mentioned else where, additionally including but not limited to Don Feder, Bob Weiner, the Rev. Tim LaHaye, and the US Taxpay ers Party would necessarily have supported or associated themselves in any way with the "Supremacy Amendment" or any of the actual positions or actions that Jefferson Davis Hague or any members of his government or political parties took pursuant to it, at that time or in the future.
2. For an excellent summary of both the Right-Wing Reactionary position on the issue of separation of church and state and the Constitutionalist response to it, see Transition Era works by Boston (1993) and Anti-Defamation League (ADL).
3. "Creationism" held that the Biblical fable that some un known and unknowable being called "God" created the world in seven days about six thousand years ago should be taken literally. Further, it held that the story should be taught in the schools as fact, and that on its basis, evolution science should be held to be completely without validity.
4. Referring here to the antiquated religious concept held by some at the time that there is some such entity as an "unborn" or "pre-born" child.
5. Statement of highest Church authority.
6. Ironically, the Baptists would become one of the leading sects among those of the Religious Right.
(Article changed on May 30, 2024 at 3:35 PM EDT)
