ABOUT THE BOOK

New Book Description for Website Commentary:

It is the opinion of the United States Supreme Court that no matter how Biblical creation is interpreted through the public education system using religious or theological instruction, it does not however conform to a secular interpretation of the said constitution under the establishment clause of a secular government, which is contrary to moral law on the lawful basis that human rights and equality has been defined by the United Nations 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). The United Nation’s UDHR has derived itself from United States Commonwealth constitutionalism, the 1066 common law of England, and the 1776 United States Declaration of Independence that defines the Creator as self-evident on the basis of conscience and equality, thus leading to global emancipation from slavery by the rights of conscience and liberty. The United States 1776 Declaration of Independence is the world’s most influential legal document to date, because a total of 54 nations and 16 legislative States have since declared their independence in order to secure the practice of a global democracy, which forms the Commonwealth alliance today.

From the United States 1776 Declaration of Independence, we find that the historical and lawful interpretation of sovereign extends unto every human being by the rights of conscience, equality, and liberty, which also pertains to the Creator in order to interpret the human conscience as endowed before the law on moral grounds. Thus, defining Commonwealth theology as a lawful obligation by the United States Supreme Court in order to sustain the lawful definition of the Creator from the common law in order to define the human being as sovereign by the rights of conscience and liberty.

This theology holds that man is a sovereign being who is not to be defined as a legal construct by the courts due to morality in law and the rights of conscience, of which, the legislator is to conform to over time in order that we the people may correct the system for correctional purposes under the lawful provision of a democracy. Otherwise, the primary mechanism for the correctional system will fail the people over time who are to be defined as free and independent on the basis of conscience and equality, rather than secular in terms and conditions that deny all religious instructions in law as theological in order to advance atheism throughout the world, which is contrary to morality law on the lawful basis that the human conscience is self-evident.

The United States Supreme Court cannot justify their judicial decision to reject Biblical creation as the correct legal standard for free education and law in order for the lawful interpretation of conscience to be protected as inalienable, because the correct and constitutional interpretation of conscience, liberty, and equality derives from United States Commonwealth constitutionalism, and Commonwealth theology in law, rather than secular science. Commonwealth theology in law is thereby obligatory in order to interpret morality in law, which becomes legally binding by the people and the courts due to the lawful and immutable terms and definitions that are designed to liberate the individual from subjugation, whether foreign or domestic, and thereby forms the lingual standard by which the Supreme Court is to conform to over time for correctional purposes.

The theory of evolution itself is in fact an attempt by theologians to undermine the universal law of equality by bringing the lawful definition of a human being into serious question before the conscience of society by redefining the human being to that of a lower animal, which, historically, is the nature of human subjugation under the law. If the evolutionary theory is to bring our God given humanity into question before the law by redefining man as animal, then the theory of evolution should be called into question by the law, which is self-explanatory on the basis of freedom, equality, and the protection of liberty.

Otherwise, freedom will be lost over time through the due process of law, because any theoretical assertion that is sustained by the courts in relation to the human being as a lower animal will deprive the people of their just liberties, which must be protected under the common law as immutable and inalienable, or the people’s protection from the law will cease to have an effect globally due to a deprivation of liberty by the Supreme Court that is bound by oath to a just deliberation of the law. Thus, the lawful provision of an equality and a global democracy is thereby relative to theology in law as the legal standard, by which human rights and equality has been defined universally as inalienable and endowed by our Creator in order to define the human being as sovereign in rights, protections, and obligations under moral law, which then restricts the courts from breaking their word or oath in conjunction with the protection of liberty.

Human equality has been defined universally as owing to every human being on the basis of conscience, equality, and liberty, which is a theological instruction in law that serves as humanity’s safeguard from racial exclusion and government tyranny. The lawful and immutable term, conscience, is a theological word in law that derives from Commonwealth theology in order to define an equality between gentile and Jew, which means that Commonwealth theology is for the purpose of an equality to be explained factually to the students from the premise of law. Thus, Commonwealth theology in law is the universal legal standard in place to define an equality of nations before the law under the lawful provision of a global democracy, and is protected under Commonwealth constitutionalism as inalienable by the rights of conscience and liberty.

The term “liberty” in law pertains to human freedom from subjugation, which means that human freedom under the law pertains to human liberation by the law, whereby the individual has been defined as equal in rights on the basis of conscience, equality, and liberty. If we are to allow for a secular interpretation of theology in law, then the people who are dependent on the law shall be denied their liberty under freedom of conscience and religion, because the common law and Commonwealth constitutionalism pertain to the Creator on moral grounds in order to liberate the human being by the rights of conscience, equality, and liberty, which is not owing to a secular clause in law, but to the Creator who alone is sovereign.

If the United States Supreme Court is to reinterpret the rights of conscience as secular, along with the constitutionally protected definition of an equality as legislative only, then the people may reject this view on moral grounds, because the correct and constitutional interpretation of the law has derived from a theological interpretation of morality in law, which does not pertain to a secular clause in government as sovereign, but to the Creator instead who has endowed each person with conscience and with rights for the purpose of an equality, as from Commonwealth theology (Ephesians 2:11-18). It was the view of the founding fathers of the United States that the separation of both Church and State would not only protect the State’s independence to legislate charters, but also, the Church, which was not to be misconstrued as being separate from education and law on secular grounds whatsoever, which is a violation of the First Constitutional Amendment where the government is acting as a legal fiction or corporation.

A legal fiction, in law, cannot exercise the rights of conscience, because a legal fiction (or legal person) is a creation of the courts. Thus, defining the separation of both Church and State as a means of protecting the people, and the Church, as sovereign under the lawful provision of a democracy, thus allowing for religious freedom, which forms the statutory limitations of the government under the First Constitutional Amendment. Under a Commonwealth legal system, the government is acting as the republic, while the people form the democracy, and it is the sovereignty of the democracy that is inalienable under the First Constitutional Amendment clause where the government is acting as a legal fiction, while the people are endowed with conscience by their Creator. Otherwise, the rights of conscience must derive from the courts alone, which is a violation of the said constitution under moral law, in that no State shall violate the rights of conscience through a Federally funded public education system in order to advance a secular stance within society that cannot conform to religious freedom under the law, and therefore, a democracy.

The right to a democracy is protected as inalienable under a legislative system of self-government that will legislate on the grounds of freedom and liberty in order to advance a global democracy, rather than secular terms and conditions that attempt to deny the Creator from education and law in order for the government to advance a secular stance within the democracy, which is unconstitutional according to the First Constitutional Amendment where the government is acting as a legal fiction or corporation that cannot interfere with the rights of conscience within a democracy by denoting man as animal from the evolutionary theory, which is a deprivation of liberty that is being done on purpose in order to stifle the opinions of a democracy into believing that their government alone is sovereign, which is contrary to moral law under freedom of conscience.

The action taken by the United States Supreme Court to deny the Creator from free education and law based on secular terms and conditions from the First Constitutional Amendment Clause of a secular government is unconstitutional under the conscience clause in law, and therefore, raises reasonable suspicion by we the people, because the voting system pertains to the people by the rights of conscience and liberty, so that a legal fiction, or legal person, is subject to the voting constituency under a moral obligation in law to sustain the democracy in justice and liberty through a just deliberation of the law that pertains to protection of person rights in order that no human being should ever be defined as the property of the State using secular terminology that defines man as animal from the evolutionary theory.

Atheism is protected under the law as a religion and is without sufficient cause due to a denial of conscience and equality based on Darwinism in education. Under United States Federal Law, racism and antisemitism are defined as a deprivation of liberty that incurs the wrath of the law and we the people who abide by the law for our own protection. The rights of conscience, equality, and liberty, is a theological instruction in law under Commonwealth constitutionalism, which led to the allied victory over national socialism, Nazism, and global tyranny. Under Commonwealth constitutionalism, we the people support the nation of Israel as a Church organization with the protection of United States Federal Law in order to prevent another Jewish Holocaust.

The Jewish Holocaust of World War II was the single most catastrophic disaster in the history of the world. This catastrophe must not be repeated again by those who seek to destroy the Jewish people under the guise of human freedom, because nothing will enslave mankind faster than to deprive the people of an equality on religious grounds. So, for this reason, any religion that seeks to dominate the world by force will constitute as a deprivation of liberty under freedom of conscience, which means that religious freedom pertains to human freedom, and therefore, a democracy.

The lawful provision of a global democracy pertains to an equality of nations, which is not owing to a secular clause in law that redefines the human being as a lower animal from the evolutionary theory, which was the leading cause for the Holocaust at World War II. The Evolutionary theory failed to convince at the 1945 – 1946 trial at Nuremburg following the round up of Nazi racial scientists who advocated evolution and survival of the fittest. This geopolitical action to define mankind as equal in rights led to the creation of a Jewish State from the premise of international human rights legislation, which has been brought into serious question globally under the ideological principles of scientific atheism, secular humanism, and Islamic theology, all of which, have failed to conform to a global democracy and religious freedom under international agreement.

---