To the Fellows of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission

Dear Gentlemen,

My name is Stephen L. Corrigan.  I draw illustrations that represent the principles used by our founders.  My web site is http://americanruleoflaw.com.

Liberty was defined by our founders as the right to live according to one's conscience excluding all injurious acts to others. In a democracy, the liberty of the minority is limited by consciences of the majority. Today in America, in our so-called representative democracy, the liberty of the minority and the majority are limited and depends upon the consciences of the elected of who may be persuaded to change at a moments notice their consciences in consideration of a bribe from a lobbyist.

The Apostle Paul asked the following question in 1 Corninthin10: 29 (b):   "for why is my liberty judged of another man's conscience?"  Aren't you just a little bit concerned about the reduction of our liberty that God through Christ gave to us?

This nation was founded upon the principle of Protestant liberty established during the Reformation period.  Please let me refresh your minds concerning their use of the terms liberty and conscience. Martin Luther unknowingly inspired Catholics to look at the liberty Christ gave to them in a different light than what was taught to them by the Church. He made the following statement:

 "I say, then, neither pope, nor bishop, nor any man whatever has the right of making one syllable binding on a Christian man, unless it be done with his own consent. Whatever is done otherwise is done in the spirit of tyranny...I cry aloud on behalf of liberty and conscience, and I proclaim with confidence that no kind of law can with any justice be imposed on Christians, except so far as they themselves will; for we are free from all."

For the early Christians who came to America on the Mayflower, a right to form their own conscience was of paramount importance. They believed that when one was old enough to form a conscience, God would then hold him accountable for his actions as a sinner. They also believed that only those who had made a firm commitment to follow Christ as Lord should be baptized. They believed that baptism symbolized the pledge of a good conscience. They called it "Believer's Baptism.

1 Peter 3:21 "and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also-not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge [a] of a good conscience toward God.

 Because most were baptized as infants in the Roman Catholic Church, they re-baptized themselves after making a conscience decision as adults to be under the Lordship of Christ. Consequently, because of this practice they were called Anabaptists or rebaptisers.

Now permit me to show you the concept of the conscience as seen by the court today.

"Conscience - The moral sense: the faculty of judging the moral qualities of actions, or of discriminating between right and wrong; particularly applied to one's perception and judgement of the moral qualities of his own conduct, but in a wider sense, denoting a similar application of the standards of morality to the acts of others. The sense of right and wrong inherent in every person by virtue of his existence as a social entity"  (page 376, Black's Law Dictionary, Revised Forth Edition)

You probably didn't know that you had the right to discriminate the actions of others because of your God given right of liberty to follow your own conscience. I hope you are beginning to understand the importance of using those two terms correctly in today's world.

The laws or standards of morality that one accepts describes how one's conscience is formed. Your conscience as described in the preceding paragraph defines how you as a Christian are to discriminate between right and wrong concerning your own conduct but in a greater sense, the acts or conduct of others using God's standards." When you accept Jesus Christ as Lord, you accept God's standards for morality, not the Supreme Court's standards.

 Our leaders founded this nation upon the liberty found in the Gospel of the New Testament. And as Protestants they consistently used the term "conscience" or "right of conscience" in all their legal documents when referring to their liberty. You will not find "freedom to choose" or "right to choose" in any legal document.

When the Anabaptists came to America on the Mayflower, they created a new order of government designed to protect everyone's right of conscience. The existing three forms of government known to the world at that time were democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy. None however could protect the liberty of all at the same time.

This new order created by Anabaptists used the constitution as a job description or law to government to limit its powers to areas that would not interfere with their rights of conscience. All political constitutions in America are of this type. It is this same type of constitution that is found in all Southern Baptist churches today. This type prevents leaders in both the religious and political realms from interfering with our "right of conscience".

You can see the "new order" illustrated on the federal, State, and local levels at the end of Chief Justice Marshall's statement on limited government at
   http://americanruleoflaw.com

When Thomas Jefferson wrote the U.S. Constitution, he wrote it as law to government (a job description) for the elected leaders. Sir George Tucker, a close friend of Jefferson's, wrote an application commentary on Blackstone's Commentary for America. Tucker's Commentary on Blackstone's Commentary was the standard for passing the bar in America. See his statement on the new order at http://www.americanruleoflaw.com/page26.html

As you have probably already guessed, Catholics in America are ignorant of this "new order" to no fault of their own. The Roman Catholic Church has not allowed them to attend a Protestant service until recently. You need to teach our friends about "the new order".

You can now see why the first article in the "Bill of Rights" is the most important for all Americans of all faiths. It protects our "Right of Conscience". If we should ever loose that right, the rest are for naught.

 Jefferson pointed this out in his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association.

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and state. (emphasis added) Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the Nation in behalf of the rights of conscience."

He also wrote a letter to the Methodists concerning the same subject. He said:

 "No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the power of its public functionaries..." (Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Methodist Episcopal Church at New London, Connecticut, Feb. 4, 1809).

The Supreme Court loves to quote Jefferson's line concerning the "wall of separation between church and state'. It's referred to as the "Establishment Clause. They use it to keep Christians restricted in their speech and actions in the marketplace. We have been so concerned about the government favoring one denomination over another that we have overlooked the reason recognized by Jefferson for the clause in the first place.

May I bring to your attention the next sentence in his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association?  Jefferson states that he is: "adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the Nation in behalf of the rights of conscience."

For the Supreme Court to acknowledge this line, they would have to admit two things. First, they would have to admit that the will of the people is supreme over the will of the Court when it comes to "rights of conscience".  And second, because it is supreme over the Supreme Court, all interpretations made by the Court that allowed the creation of new acts and laws to interfere with the "rights of conscience" of Americans would be null and void.  (See Chief Justice Marshall's statement concerning such acts and laws at http://americanruleoflaw.com. The U.S. Constitution is law to govern the States. It does not list any areas inside the states to be pursued by the federal government that might be considered to interfere with a citizen's "Right of Conscience".

Article VI

Clause 2: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

 To understand the meaning of "Pursuance thereof" in the new order, We must look at Alexander Hamilton's Letter #33 of "The Federalist Papers". He States:

 "If individuals enter into a state of society, the laws of that society must be the supreme regulator of their conduct. If a number of political societies enter into a larger political society, the laws which the latter may enact, pursuant to the powers intrusted to it by its constitution, (emphasis added) must necessarily be supreme over those societies and the individuals of whom they are composed. It would otherwise be a mere treaty, dependent on the good faith of the parties, and not a government, which is only another word for POLITICAL POWER AND SUPREMACY. But it will not follow from this doctrine that acts of the larger society which are not pursuant to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies, (emphasis added) will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such. Hence we perceive that the clause which declares the supremacy of the laws of the Union, like the one we have just before considered, only declares a truth which flows immediately and necessarily from the institution of a federal government. It will not, I presume, have escaped observation that it expressly confines this supremacy to laws made pursuant to the Constitution; which I mention merely as an instance of caution in the convention; since that limitation would have been to be understood, though it had not been expressed.
Our "rights of conscience" are off limits! They were given to us by God long before the Constitution. When we the People of these United States wrote the federal Constitution, we made it clear that we were retaining our rights of conscience.  We wrote article IX just so that fact would never change. Here it is:

  ARTICLE [IX.]