How Congress or a State can make Courts Uncensor God

while still limiting religions that incite terror

The Koran's religion of Sahih Muslim 1438a–1438e slavery, Quran 4:59 & 33:36 Tyranny, Quran 5:33 torture, Quran 9:29 war, Quran 9:5 terror, and Quran 30.45 hate, is not the equal of the Bible's religion of John 8:31-36 freedom, Deuteronomy 1:13 & Acts 14:23 elections, Matthew 21:21-22 achievement, John 14:27 peace, Psalm 91 protection, and John 15:13 love. Congress can say so, with no objections from the 1st Amendment. Congress can make courts say so, with the blessing of the Constitution. And of God. (Hover over verses and surahs to read their text.)

Forum (Articles)

Offer

Partners

Rules

Tips

FAQ

Begin!

Donate

     This article was started by Dave Leach R-IA Bible Lover-musician-grandpa (talk) 02:58, 21 August 2026 (UTC) PLEASE help finish it!

---

Introduction

Chapter 1 explains the Supreme Court’s misunderstanding of the 1st Amendment beginning in 1947 (Everson v. Board of Education), which it weaponized in 1962 against America’s previous Freedom of Religious Expression (Engel v. Vitale). The 1st Amendment does NOT equalize religions, or call it “establishment” where no one has to think, say, or do anything. Nor does the 14th Amendment even give federal courts jurisdiction over whatever religion policy any state chooses. (These aren’t my original notions. My sources include the Supreme Court.)

Chapter 2 explains that when the Supreme Court violates the Constitution, the Constitution authorizes Congress to establish facts, limit jurisdiction, overturn rulings, require a supermajority before the Court can overturn laws, or impeach – as needed to force courts back to the Constitution. It explains why the legal consensus that Congress shouldn’t use these tools is as constitutionally wrong as it is a threat to our national security, not to mention the darkness allowed to spread over hearts and souls. (These aren’t my original notions. My sources include John Marshall, the first Supreme Court Chief Justice who overturned a law for violating the Constitution that didn’t even violate the Constitution.)

But even if the evidence in Chapters 1 & 2 convinces every voter and politician that the 1st Amendment encourages Bible discussion while suppressing religions of terror, and that Congress has the blessing of the Constitution to force courts back to the Constitution, not even Christians will want the Bible uncensored so long as it is widely believed that the Bible, just like the Koran, has embarrassing, tyranny-fueling violence verses – so that the more we let Bible influence back into our politics, the closer we come to what Christians don’t want: ending religious freedom for nonChristians.

Anyone who has read the Bible very much knows that is not true. But as long as Bible-reading politicians keep Bible discussion out of their policies and campaigns, and churches bottle up the Bible inside their church walls in order to “stay out of politics”, where are the 75% of Americans who haven’t read the Bible through even once going to find out? Especially with Deuteronomy being one of the last books that American Christians read!

Chapter 3 proves that the 1st Commandment and the 1st Amendment support each other. They do not contradict. But the commandments of religions of terror do need to be suppressed because they violate the 1st Amendment, along with dozens of criminal laws. Nowhere does the Bible approve of human-enforced punishment for unbelief alone. Or for belief, alone, in religions of terror. The Bible only criminalizes the same thing that American law does: the criminal action that is inspired by belief in religions of terror, and incitement to that criminal action. Therefore, the greater influence of the Bible in a culture, the greater freedom for everyone – including unbelievers!

Chapter 3 goes a little beyond recapturing a vision of the religious freedom created by the 1st Amendment, that spread across states and ended state-monopolized religions in every state by 1838. Because then, Bible belief was held by over 99% of all Americans. (That includes the 2% who were Jews, because they believe over half of the Bible.) So although there were the occasional atheist, and an unknown number of slaves were imported from Moslem countries, the only noticeable fight that Christians had was with each other.

But what would it be like today, with only 70% of us believing the Bible is the Word of God and only 25% of us reading our Bibles once a week outside church, to re-impose the 1st Amendment as it was originally understood, which would end the ability of atheists to use courts to censor the Bible?

I think what most of us want, certainly most Christians, is more freedom of religion for everyone, including atheists, except no freedom to censor the freedom of religious expression of others, and no freedom to physically threaten, torture, or kill others – over religion, especially! If that is your desire for and vision of religious freedom, that is the vision I see in the Bible. That is the vision I present from the Bible. And common sense tells me that vision has to be understood and wanted by most Americans before it can ever be reestablished, and that can never happen without nationwide Bible discussion.

But first, the chapters explaining the 1st Amendment, and how Congress can make courts obey it. But to finish the change, America will need that Bible discussion. Without it, America can never see our 1st Amendment again that the Supreme Court locked up 64 years ago. As long as voters and politicians widely suspect the Bible and the Koran are about equal in their mix of violence and peace verses, Congress will never want courts to stop censoring God, because Congress will remain afraid that too much Bible will end Freedom of Religion. And Congress will never want to limit religions that incite terror, because Moslems will just say “why are you picking on us? Your Bibles have violence verses too!”

But of course it won’t matter much that the Supreme Court still censors God, as long as politics and churches just as “religiously” keep the influence of the Bible out of Freedom.

---

These are answers, to this point, to my prayers for a solution to make the “Supreme” Court allow public prayers to God in public spaces again, without forcing America to give equal time to Satan, and while no longer allowing baby murder.

One reason I suspect this is not ready yet is that I haven’t heard from you, and Proverbs 15:22 says “purposes are established” through “a multitude of counselors”. (Which means neither psychiatrists nor lawyers, but people with great advice, like you.) But I’m getting excited. I think this solution is close.

Neither the Constitution itself, nor any Amendment to it, was drafted by any one elected Founder but by dozens of them arguing for months, so I certainly don’t expect one 80-year-old loser of seven elections (me) to produce, by myself, a final draft of a correction of 64 years of Supreme Court perversion of the 1st Amendment. But I beg you to believe, with me, the Scriptures that promise that not even the Supreme Court has the power to block “whatever we ask, in prayer, believing” (Matthew 21:22, which I assume is subject to God leading us to what is better than what we ask, and to our readiness to give our lives in service to our goals).

I pray this draft will at least show you (1) the fraud behind “all religions are equal”, (2) the tools given Congress to bridle Supreme Court unconstitutionality, (3) answers to the widespread claims that those tools should not be used, and (4) the balance between “freedom of religion” and neutering of religions of terror that our Founders created can still work today, be fair to everyone, and lift America to new heights of Freedom, safety, and prosperity.

The Bible encourages me. I know that no law of man has authority over the 1st Commandment of God, so I don’t approach the issue by wondering if the Court is correct. I admit I did for decades, but no longer. Now I start by remembering that the God who Commands us also enables us to march forward, even if what stands in our way is a whole mountain. Matthew 21:21. We Christians really need to start trusting God, and seriously serving God, starting by moving these mountains. Which I can’t imagine doing without Scripture, which we have to stop being afraid to quote in public. Because to the extent we are worried about our reputation with people who are enraged by Bible verses, we might as well leave the Court alone, because to that extent it isn’t the Court censoring us anyway, but we ourselves and our churches.

Dave Leach, The Partnership Machine Inc. 4110 SW 9th St, Des Moines IA 50315 515-244-3711 music@saltshaker.us www.Saltshaker.US www.SaveTheWorld.Saltshaker.US www.youtube.com/user/Biblewizard2

Contents: bill language designed to make the Supreme Court stop censoring God. Findings of Facts in support of the bill language. Background facts in support of the official “findings of facts”. “Incitement to violence” implicates Islamic “scary verses”. Why this approach is well within Congress’s traditional and court-approved role. A few thoughts on criminalizing abortion again.

What Congress can Enact to Restore Religious Freedom

Understanding & Restoring the 1st Amendment

An Act of Congress

Title 42 U.S.C. § xxxx. Congress finds that the First Amendment protects the “free exercise” of religion, and nowhere in its text protects a right to be free from the religious expression of others; the Establishment Clause prohibits coercion, not offense. No court shall enjoin any law, policy, or practice that enables religious expression on the ground that it offends a non-participant’s sensibilities, or stirs his disagreement, regarding religion, unless the religious expression incites violent crime. Where a religious exercise occurs in a public space, the court shall protect the free exercise of all present — including those who wish to pray, and including the free exercise of those who wish to depart.

(Translation: a prayer in school that merely “offends” an atheist but doesn’t make the atheist do anything or even stay in the room isn’t “establishment of religion”, but censoring a whole room that wants to pray together violates their right to “free exercise” of religion. That’s why there is no “right to not be offended” in the Constitution. Courts need to defend EVERYONE’s “free expression”: of those who wish to pray, and of those who wish to leave. Even Engel v Vitale (1962) that first censored God, acknowledged that being “offended” would not trigger 1st Amendment involvement if the Court stuck to its plain words.)

In any action seeking injunctive or declaratory relief under the Free Exercise and/or Establishment Clauses from religious expression or religious exercise occurring in any setting that is used for public purposes, a court may not grant such equitable relief unless it finds, under the applicable standard of proof, that the challenged government action compels (or threatens to compel) belief, practice, or participation.

(Translation: Courts need to stay out of any religious expression case where no one is being made to do, say, or believe anything.)

“Government information or education, so long as it does not compel belief, practice, or participation, or invite charges of fraud over claims that are not testable or verifiable, may present information that identifies which religion(s) (or sacred writings) most support free government and character in citizens that makes freedom possible, and by contrast, which religion(s) (or sacred writings) most threaten free government and its citizens. Equal time for information that supports Freedom, and information that subverts Freedom – or for what is true and for what is false – is not a Constitutional requirement, which makes such a requirement by courts unconstitutional: court censorship of what is true violates “free exercise” of religion, and court-required equal time for what is proved false and that inspires violence violates “incitement to violence” laws. Noncompulsion of belief allows disagreements around the edges of what is testable, between state and federal governments, between authorities within the same government, and interaction with the public, which will make fact-finding less careless and more interesting to the pubic.

(Translation: government employees are allowed by the Constitution to point out that the Bible supports Freedom while the Koran subverts Freedom. And also that the Bible’s accuracy is corroborated by centuries of scrutiny of statements of fact that are testable, while the Koran’s only defense of its accuracy is killing its critics. The fact that government is not empowered by this paragraph to even save its own employees from scrutiny will make people more careful about facts, and the scrutiny will make their information more interesting to the public.

Perhaps the greater obstacle to passage of this paragraph will be ignorance among Christians today that it is not a testable, verifiable, empirical claim, that the Bible “most supports free government” while religions like Islam most threaten freedom. This ignorance is fueled by today’s churches’ claim that “politics and religion don’t mix”, and that politics should not be discussed in church, and is not in the Bible. During my publication of the Prayer & Action News for 25 years I often addressed this ignorance. Leftovers from the P&A are posted at www.Saltshaker.US. Hebrews 11 is a list of https://saltshaker.us/Salt/GodsPoliticalHeroes.pdf. A Bible study you can interact with, add to, or correct, is posted at https://savetheworld.saltshaker.us/wiki/Multitude_Of_Counsellors_Project.

Three proofs for now: both the Bible and our Constitution subject top leaders to a written constitution. Deuteronomy 17:18, 1 Sam 10:25. Both guarantee equal rights for all classes – widow, orphan, immigrant specified as examples in dozens of verses. Deut 10:18, 14:29, 16:11, 14, 24:17-21, 26:12-13, 27:19, Psa 94:6, Jer 7:6, 22:3, Eze 22:7, Zech 7:10, Mal 3:5, 1 Thes 4:6. Both choose all their leaders, Deuteronomy 1:13, Acts 14:23.Both choose all their leaders, Deuteronomy 1:13. Do I need to remind you of opposite commands from the Koran? Frank Lutz published an analysis showing the Bible was quoted by America’s Founders more than all other sources added together. He counted 3,154 quotes in “public political literature” between 1760 and 1805. He found that 34% of them were from the Bible. The Bible book most cited was Deuteronomy, which reviews Moses’ laws. Most of the rest of the Bible quotes were from the Old Testament, so maybe we should stop talking about the Christian influences on American Freedom and talk about Jewish influences. (“The Origins of American Constitutionalism” by Donald S. Lutz, p. 140-141.) Federal authorities absolutely need freedom of speech to state facts. Freedom depends on it.)

Government authorities must be free to not only warn the public about threats clothed in religious garb, but free to neutralize incitement to violence. In any prosecution for incitement to violence, the trier of fact shall determine whether the messaging was likely to cause violence, as shown by a track record of comparable violence caused by comparable messaging. No additional element — including any requirement of temporal imminence — shall be required.

(Translation: Islam is currently the religion that most crosses the line into “incitement to violence”. That is, the Koran and Hadiths have a track record beyond serious dispute of producing terrorists out of any group under their teachings, as proved by the match between public statements by Imams of the terror that Islam requires, and the carnage of “Allah Akbar”-quoting terrorists. . To a lesser degree, several other doctrines in America today incite violence and crime. Unfortunately “incitement to violence” is relative and therefore where to draw the line is subjective, something like pornography. But it is still a scheduled crime, and needs to be prosecuted at whatever point juries say “America needs that to stop!” Deuteronomy 13 is where the Bible criminalizes “incitement to violence”. It basically says belief alone, in ‘gods’ of violence, is not prosecutable, but any teaching that we should also obey, or “serve”, them, is “incitement”. That line, applied in America, is at least objective: we would prosecute anyone who says we ought to “obey” the Koran’s “scary verses”.)

Restoring "Incitement to Violence" prosecutions

(Background: Brandenburg v Ohio (1969) 2. effectively neutralized “incitement to violence” prosecutions by adding “imminence” to what a prosecutor has to prove. Not just any “imminence”, but a wholly undefined “imminence”. Does that mean if the violence follows the incitement by two years (for example when schools teach children to be terrorists) that isn't “imminent” enough - it has to be no more than two seconds later? The Court wouldn’t say. But the case was about a meeting of KKK leaders vowing they would “bury the niggers”, only two days before a KKK march on Washington of an expected 400,000 Klanners, and that wasn't “imminent”!? Never mind, though, its absurdity then. Today we need prosecution of “incitement to violence” against a global movement whose texts command war against religious freedom and whose adherents have demonstrated a thousand years’ track record of obeying those commands and turning relatively free nations into slave states. Conditioning imminence on a demonstrated historical conversion rate is a principled, data-driven modernization — not a content-based restriction.)

(a) In any Federal criminal proceeding concerning incitement to lawless action, or in any Federal proceeding concerning the denial of entry, benefits, privileges, or protections to persons who advocate violence, the trier of fact may consider, as probative evidence of the likely effect of speech or conduct:

(1) the historical and empirical record of the religious or ideological tradition invoked by the speaker, including whether the authoritative texts of that tradition command or authorize offensive violence or violations of American criminal laws;

(2) whether the specific verses, passages, or authorities cited have, in documented practice, been followed by acts of violence or violations of American criminal laws; and

(3) whether the tradition’s own interpretive hierarchy treats the violent passages as superseding, or as superseded by, its peaceful passages.

(The Koran’s later terror surahs “abrogate” or cancel the earlier contradictory “peaceful” surahs. By contrast, the Bible’s “turn the other cheek” New Testament is widely interpreted to cancel the Old Testament’s “war” verses. There is not one verse endorsing offensive war or human-enforced punishment of anyone for unbelief without criminal action, but if there were, common Christian interpretation would regard them as canceled.)

(b) Where a religious or ideological tradition’s authoritative texts command offensive violence and its adherents have, in documented practice, carried out such violence in response to those commands, a showing that the tradition in question has a demonstrated track record of converting such textual commands into violent action, cited in a context that could foreseeably incite such action, shall establish “incitement to violence” by the speaker.

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the peaceful practice of any religion, the reading of any scripture in private or in worship, or the advocacy of any religious or political doctrine that does not command or incite violence.

What State Legislatures can do

Resolutions a state legislature can pass to prod Congress & influence the legal strategy of its own Attorney General

Less developed ideas on other issues:

Whereas, Roe v Wade acknowledged that when it is established that babies of people are people, then “of course” killing them via abortion will have to be outlawed. AND

Whereas, Dobbs v. Jackson opened its ruling with the admission that the case was decided without addressing whether babies of people are people. AND

Whereas, 18 U.S.C. 1841(d), enacted by Congress in 2004, on April 1, establishes the fact that babies of people are people. AND

Whereas, killing people who are innocent and who are not threatening anybody is the crime of Murder and cannot be allowed by law without gross harm to the Constitution and the very Rule of Law.

Therefore, be it resolved, that: Congress finds that human life begins at conception and that unborn humans are ‘persons’ within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. No court of the United States shall have jurisdiction to hear any claim that is affected by a determination of whether an unborn child of a human is a person, except where the court holds that such child is a person, or states in writing the factual and textual basis for concluding that the child of a human is not a person. Any such holding shall be made expressly, in a signed opinion, and not by implication, silence, or assumption. AND

BE it resolved, that the Court, before holding that the child of a human is not a person, shall present evidence for that holding overwhelming enough to overcome the 100% consensus of court-recognized fact finders that have taken a position, in every category of court-recognized fact finders: in trials of people for saving babies, every expert witness, every jury allowed to rule on the “Necessity Defense” who heard expert witnesses, 38 state legislatures in “unborn victims of violence” laws, Congress in 18 U.S.C. 1841(d), and every individual judge that has taken a position, has ruled that babies of people are people.