ACH Study Groups
Ben & Fran Gilmore – Cofounders
7659 Gingerblossom Drive
Citrus Heights, CA 95621
April 14, 2015
This is a letter to our friends –
PAG Post-Graduate Reminder
All those who have completed the “Principles of American Government” online course are welcome to attend these monthly discussions. To participate you must call me to be added to the call list.
We will meet next Sunday at 1330H. I will initiate the video call on Skype.
The discussion will begin with the comments on the following article:
Religious Liberty and the Compelling State Interest Test
by Neil Markva
(This is an email that was sent by Neil December 20, 1999 to U.D. Roberts and others)
There are two types of lawyers today—Constitutional lawyers and Supreme Court
opinion lawyers. The former hold that the Court has no authority to make law, so that a
Supreme Court opinion is merely an opinion of men that binds only the parties to the
particular cause of action.
The majority rule in the so-called Christian legal community (of which I consider myself
a member) has rejected this premise, however, and has decided to play on the enemy’s
playing field, use their equipment, and operate according to their rules. When they seem
to be making some headway, the enemy simply changes the rules and we believers
remain on the outside looking in. And God is further isolated from the fray. Some of us
do not agree and refuse to buy into this point of view.
Members of the bar who think and reason in accord with the 18th century principles of
law and government as embodied in our nation’s state and federal constitutions are
marginalized, repudiated, shunned, and in short, simply treated as outcasts. Believe me.
I’m not complaining or whining. I’m simply stating facts. At the same time, I’m most
encouraged because people like you DO understand English and are willing to do what
has to be done to promote the TRUTH.
At the heart of the matter is the compelling State interest test, which presupposes that no
fixed laws of right and wrong exist. Consequently, all courts now “balance the interests”
allegedly involved in the particular controversy before a court. The rejection of an
objective, fixed law is a rejection of God, the Creator, and His laws of nature and of
nature’s God as the common law that governs all things (whether we believe it or not). In
place of the Creator and the fixed laws of the Created Order, public policy in America
simply substitutes custom, tradition, and court decisions as the common law.
Our Christian “leaders” acknowledged and accepted this new common law after God’s
law was completely rejected once and for all in 1962 by Justice William Brennan who
invented the “compelling State interest” test out of whole cloth. When Justice Scalia
rejected the compelling State interest test in the 1989 Smith (peyote) case in favor of the
jurisdictional test that recognizes God’s exclusive jurisdiction over our religion, the
Christian lawyers joined the ACLU, People for the American Way, and a collection of
other Marxist organizations. Clearly, Marxists aka Socialists do not want any State
recognition of Scalia’s attempt to restore the exclusive jurisdiction of God over our free
exercise of religion.
In their quest to override the Smith case and its jurisdictional argument underpinnings,
our “leaders” opted to reject it and promote the “balancing test” unconstitutionally
devised by the Supreme Court. And of what does the “balancing test” consist? With no
absolute, fixed law, they start with the consideration of the “interests” of the parties
involved in the case or controversy. The State’s interest is always brought into the mix
for, after all, the court is now a primary maker of public policy having successfully
eliminated the common law of God and having assumed complete power over any
legislative act by judicial fiat. Any decision is generally recognized and accepted as law
by everyone unless, of course, it undermines the socialist agenda.
The State’s interest invariably supports the interests of one of the parties. If you think of
a first party’s interest as the thesis and the second party’s interest as the antithesis, then it
is the State that will determine the synthesis that will become the starting point in the next
court case on the subject. This, of course, is simply the direct application of the Hegelian
dialectic applied to the law thus making every court case an example of dialectical
materialism in the best Marxian sense.
Few understand what is going on. But I do not think this analysis is an extreme position.
I challenge anyone to show me where my understanding is wrong.
I personally know the people involved. In one instance, after sitting through a seminar
presentation of one friend who rejected the jurisdictional test of the Smith case, I told him
that I thought we were turning our back on God by supporting the “compelling State
interest test.” For the jurisdictional argument recognizes our religious freedom as an
unalienable right so that the State has no authority whatsoever to restrain our exercise of
the duty which we owe to our Creator. He simply turned his back on me and refused to
discuss the matter.
It is particularly unnerving when you realize that our Lord commanded us to “teach the
nations to obey all that He commanded us” (Matthew 28:18-20). Instead, with respect to
the civil magistrates of America, we simply ignore this command and accept the State as
the new found sovereign in our lives. We have no king but Caesar!
Our opposition is directed toward the wholesale rejection of the concept of unalienable
rights with respect to numerous subjects including, but not limited to, our religious
liberty, the education of our children, and the use of our private property. Some of us are
convinced that there is a remnant that agrees with us. And we believe that things can be
done to get our Lord more involved in the battle that is raging.
He is involved. But, in my opinion, His hands are significantly tied by the confusion that
reigns in the Body of Christ with respect to these matters. He will do nothing to butt into
the work of His people unless they want Him to do so. And only in those situations
where there is agreement. Our friends in the legal community who favor the compelling
State interest test make it clear where they stand. It will take the concerted efforts of
others of us to see His TRUTH ultimately prevail in this particular matter.
To make sure that we are within His will, we must operate within the authority structure
of our Lord if we are to see healing and restoration in our land. We are working toward
that end. We cannot make personal attacks on anyone. But it is essential that we come
down hard on any idea that is a rejection of God and His laws.
When considering whether or not to support any legislation concerning any matter, we
recommend that you look for any “exception” clause and reference to a compelling State
or governmental interest test. If the latter is involved, don’t support it. For this reason,
none of the particular pieces of legislation that you have on the website should be
We have much work ahead. But it is good to see that others are moving along parallel
Hopefully, the foregoing is helpful.
In His service,