Constitutional Historical Notes to Psalm 2:1-3

Psalm 2:1-3

“Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his anointed, saying Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.”

a. One of the primary ways the Supreme Court determines whether a law or action violates the Establishment clause of the First Amendment is use of the “Lemon Test”, a test taken from Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971). This ungodly test is probably cited and used in most if not all the instances where godly Christian traditions or practices have been removed from our cultural landscape.

b. The Lemon Test (Constitutional Law 961) In order for a state statute to be permissible under the establishment clause of the First Amendment, (1) the statute must have a secular legislative purpose, (2) the statutes principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion, and (3) the statute must not foster and excessive government entanglement with religion.

c. The Lemon Test in all its prongs is ungodly. This is clearly demonstrated point by point.

1). The first prong: A secular purpose.

a). According to the American Heritage Dictionary, and Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary, a synonym for profane is “secular”.

b). 2 Timothy 2:16 says, “Shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.” Although the word profane means unhallowed, it also means void of religion and lacks all relationship or affinity with God. According to Scripture, the pursuit of secularism will increase more into ungodliness.

c). It was use of this prong that did away with the Ten Commandments in public schools and in county courthouses, [Stone v. Graham (1980) and McCreary County Kentucky v. ACLU (2005)]. It was also used to strike down Louisiana’s Balanced Treatment Act, the state law which required creation be taught alongside evolution in Louisiana public schools. [Edwards v. Aguillard (1987)].

2). The second prong: It must neither advance nor inhibit religion.

a). There is no neutrality with God. Jesus said you are either with me or you’re against me, Matthew 12:30.

3). The third prong: The statute must not foster an excessive entanglement with religion.

a). This prong has a prophetic similarity to the purpose of the kings, rulers, and judges of the earth in Psalm 2, against the Lord and against his Christ. “Let us break their bands asunder, and cast their cords from us.”

d. All of the decisions of the Supreme Court or any branch of government forbidding Christian traditions on government property, whether it be about prayer, Bible reading,  Nativity displays, the Ten Commandments are all “breaking the bands asunder”, “casting away the cords of the Lord”, and suppressing the truth of God. The Apostle Paul calls the attempts “ungodliness” in Romans 1:18. These Supreme Court justices know full well of what they are doing, as will be shown in the following notes.

The First Amendment

1. Adopted June 15, 1790: “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

a. Original Intent

1). Joseph Story: “We are not to attribute this [First Amendment] prohibition of a national religious establishment to an indifference to Christianity (which none could hold in more reverence, than the framers of the Constitution)…Probably, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and the Amendment to it now under consideration, the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the State…An attempt to level all religions and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference would have created universal disapprobation [disapproval] if not universal indignation [anger].” (Source: A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States, Harper & Brothers, New York, 1854, pp. 259-261.) ( Joseph Story, (1779-1845). Member of the Massachusetts State Legislature, 1805-1807, 1811. Member of U. S. House of Representatives 1808-1809. Appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court by President James Madison, 1811-1845. Authored 269 majority opinions of the Court.) (This quote was taken out of Original Intent, David Barton, Wallbuilder Press, 1996. p. 30.)

2). HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: “What is an establishment of religion? It must have a creed defining what a man must believe; it must have rites and ordinances which believers must observe; it must have ministers of defined qualifications to teach the doctrines and administer the rites; it must have tests for the submissive and penalties for the nonconformist. There never was an established religion without all these. Had the people, during the Revolution, had a suspicion of any attempt to war against Christianity, that Revolution would have been strangled in its cradle. At the time of the adoption of the Constitution and the amendments, the universal sentiment was that Christianity should be encouraged, not any one sect [denomination]. Any attempt to level and discard all religion would have been viewed with universal indignation…It [religion] must be considered as the foundation on which the whole structure rests…In this age there can be no substitute for Christianity; that, in its general principles, is the great conservative element on which we must rely for the purity and permanence of free institutions. That was the religion of the founders of the republic, and they expected it to remain the religion of the descendants.”  (Source: Reports of Committees of the House of Representatives Made during the First Session of the Thirty-Third Congress, (Washington: A.O.P. Nicholson, 1854), pp. 1, 6, 8, 9.)  (This quote was taken out of Original Intent, David Barton, Wallbuilder Press, 1996. pp. 30, 31.)

3). SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: “The clause speaks of “an establishment of religion”. What is meant by that expression? It referred, without doubt, to that establishment which existed in the mother-country…[which was an] endowment, at the public expense, in exclusion of or in preference to any other, by giving to its members exclusive political rights, and by compelling the attendance of those who rejected it communion upon its worship on religious observances. These three particulars constituted that union of church and state of which our ancestors were so justly jealous, and against which they so wisely and carefully provided…They [the Founders] intended, by this Amendment, to prohibit “an establishment of religion” such as the English Church presented, or any thing like it. But they had no fear or jealousy of religion itself, not did they wish to see us an irreligious people…they did not intend to spread over all the public authorities and the whole public action of the nation the dead and revolting spectacle of atheistical apathy.” (Source: The Reports of Committes of the Senate of the United States for the Second Session of the Thirty-Second Congress, 1852-53 (Washington: Robert Armstrong, 1853), pp. 1-4.) (This quote was taken   out of Original Intent, David Barton, Wallbuilder Press, 1996, p. 31.)

b. The above quotes make it clear what the original intent of the First Amendment was, but I can assure you that the Judiciary branch of our government at every level, starting with the Supreme Court no longer agrees or applies it that way.

1). Allegheny County v. ACLU [1989 Supreme Court decision about Nativity Scenes at County Courthouses] “Perhaps in the early days of the Republic these words[The First Amendment][The Establishment Clause] were understood to protect only the diversity within Christianity, but today they are recognized as guaranteeing religious liberty and equality to “the infidel, the atheist, or the adherent of a non-christian faith such as Islam or Judaism.” It is settled law that no governmental official in this Nation may violate these fundamental constitutional rights regarding matters of conscience.”

2). Everson v. Board of Education, 1947, Mr. Justice Rutledge dissent: “The [First] Amendment's purpose was not to strike merely at the official establishment of a single sect, creed or religion, outlawing only a formal relation such as had prevailed in England and some of the colonies. Necessarily, it was to uproot all such relationships. But the object was broader than separating church and state in this narrow sense. It was to create a complete and permanent separation of the spheres of religious activity and civil authority by comprehensively forbidding every form of public aid or support for religion.”

2. The Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

a. Engel v. Vitale, Prayer in School, 1962

1). This case was decided in 1962. It forbids children in our nation's public schools to pray while at school.

2). Job 21:15 “What is the Almighty, that we should serve him? And what profit should we have, if we pray unto him?”  But as Job 21:16 says, this is nothing but “the counsel of the wicked”, and full of hypocrisy.

3). Justice Stewart’s dissent in this case lists 10 different president’s requests for prayer, he lists how each day the opening Session of the Supreme Court is opened in prayer, he shows how both houses of Congress open their days with prayer. He then asks the rhetorical question, “Or is the Court suggesting that the Constitution permits judges and Congressmen and Presidents to join in prayer but prohibits school children from doing so?”

4). But the most shocking part of Engel v. Vital is from the pen of Justice Black, and reveals these Justices know full well what they are doing in removing Christian traditions from the public square. “It is true that New York’s establishment of its Regents’ prayer as an officially approved religious doctrine of that State does not amount to a total establishment of one particular religious sect to the exclusion of all others—that, indeed, the governmental endorsement of that prayer seems relatively insignificant when compared to the governmental encroachments upon religion which were commonplace 200 years ago.”

a). Government encroachment upon religion? Perhaps he was referring to laws such as the Sunday laws. In McGowan v. Maryland, 1961 a case that challenged Sunday closing laws Chief Justice Warren writes. “The American colonial Sunday restrictions arose soon after settlement.” One of the examples that he lists is a 1695 New York Sunday law that reads: “Whereas, the true and sincere worship of God according to his holy will and commandments, is often profaned and neglected by many of the inhabitants and sojourners in this province, who do not keep holy the Lord’s day, but in a disorderly manner accustom themselves to travel, laboring, working, shooting, fishing, sporting, playing, horse-racing, frequenting of tipping houses and using many other unlawful exercises and pastimes, upon the Lord’s day, to the great scandal of the holy Christian faith, be it enacted, etc.”

b). Or perhaps Justice Black, was referring to the many laws against cursing and blasphemy, such as North Carolina’s Act to Prevent the Grievous Sins of Cursing and Swearing, from 1790. Or maybe he was referring to Rhode Island’s Act for the More Effectual Suppressing of Blasphemy and Prophaneness from 1703.

c). Encroachments upon religion? These were state governments acknowledging their dependence on God. Justice Black’s reasoning is reprobate, it is backwards. What the courts are doing now to squash all Christian tradition from our nation's heritage is encroachment upon religion. The point is these judges know the Christian influences of our nations founding, and they are doing their unholy best to stamp it out fulfilling Psalm 2:1-3.

a. Abington v. Schempp, Forbade Bible Reading in School, 1963.  Because of the prohibition of the First Amendment against the enactment by Congress of any law "respecting an establishment of religion," which is made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, no state law or school board may require that passages from the Bible be read or that the Lord's Prayer be recited in the public schools of a State at the beginning of each school day -- even if individual students may be excused from attending or participating in such exercises upon written request of their parents. Pp. 205-227. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0374_0203_ZS.html

1). In describing the counsel of the wicked Job said in Job 21:14 “Therefore they say unto God, Depart from us; for we desire not the knowledge of thy ways.” And yet this is the counsel of the highest court of land.

2). Justice Stewart vigorously disagreed with the decision and wrote in his dissent. “As a matter of history, the First Amendment was adopted solely as a limitation upon the newly created National Government, The events leading to its adoption strongly suggest that the Establishment Clause was primarily an attempt to insure that Congress not only would be powerless to establish a national church, but would also be unable to interfere with existing state establishments…Each State was left free to go its own way and pursue its own policy with respect to religion. Thus Virginia from the beginning pursued a policy of disestablishmentarianism. Massachusetts, by contrast, had an established church until well into the nineteenth century.” He goes on to write. “And a refusal to permit religious exercises thus is seen, not as the realization of state neutrality, but rather as the establishment of a religion of secularism, or at the least, as government support of the beliefs of those who think that religious exercises should be conducted only in private.”

a). As I read this I am reminded of the relationship of “secular” and “profane”, they are synonymous. The warning in 2 Timothy 2:16 is so applicable. “But shun profane/secular babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.” Nothing could be more true for the high court, for as the years have passed since those early ungodly decisions much more ungodliness has come down to us through the court, based on these precedents. As they seek to establish a state of neutrality, they are establishing a state of secularism, a state of profanity.

c. Stone v. Graham

1). This case was decided in 1980. It is the first Supreme Court case that dealt with the Ten Commandments and the second time it dealt with the word of God in public schools. The posting of the Ten Commandments in public schools were declared unconstitutional because, the majority said, it failed the first prong of the Lemon test-a secular purpose.

2). Again I am reminded of the relationship of secular and profane. Paul warned Timothy that profane babbling will increase unto more ungodliness. This ruling was indeed a profane babbling and it increased unto more ungodliness.

a). In Adams County, Ohio, this ruling was used as authority to force the county to remove the monument of the Commandments away from the school.

b). It was used in Cobb County Georgia to force them to move its Ten Commandment plaque out of the courthouse.

c). And lastly it was appealed to when McCreary County Kentucky and all U.S. County Courthouses were forced to remove the Ten Commandments from inside the courthouse.

3). In Stone v. Graham the majority wrote: “If the posted copies of the Ten Commandments are to have any effect at all, it will be to induce the school children to read, meditate upon, perhaps to venerate and obey, the Commandments. However desirable this might be as a matter of private devotion, it is not a permissible state objective under the Establishment Clause.”

a). I am reminded of Hosea 4:6 that says, “…because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee,…seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.” I am also reminded of Proverbs 1:30, 31 that declares that those who will have nothing to do with God’s counsel or reproof shall eat the fruit of their own way and be filled with their own devices.

b). It was Martin Luther who wrote: “I am much afraid that schools will prove to be great gates of hell unless they diligently labor in explaining the Holy Scriptures, engraving them in the hearts of youth. I advise no one to place his child where the Scriptures do not reign paramount. Every institution in which men are not increasingly occupied with the word of God must become corrupt.”

c). I have no information on school shootings before 1980 or even up to the mid nineteen nineties. On the website, www.infoplease.com in its Crime Data section it listed 40 people murdered and 108 wounded in school shootings from 1996 to 2005. In light of this quote from Stone v. Graham, and the fact that Stone V. Graham was sighted as a precedent in 2005 in McCreary County Kentucky v. ACLU, it appears the Court is willing to sacrifice the lives of school children to protect its perverted interpretation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. I am not naïve enough to think that simply posting the Ten Commandments would prevent these murders; I know there are many more factors to consider. But at the same time, the word of God, because it is the word of God is able to deter individuals by causing a conflict in the conscience of an individual meditating a crime and convince them not to commit the crime. See Romans 2:15.

4). In their decisions the Supreme Court has shown it is more lenient toward pornography than it is toward the Commandments. In Miller v. California, a 1972 obscenity case, the Justices defined obscenity in three parts. The first, “whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest…” The second part deals with state laws and doesn’t concern us here. The third part is, “…whether the work taken as a whole lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value” The phrase used twice in this definition, “the work taken as a whole” is the leniency shown toward pornography. [This is the constitutional principle that became precedent in Roth v. U.S. See below.] Because of this obscenity test, in any pornographic publication, all that the publishers have to do is throw in a few articles on sports, biographies, or short stories and Presto! It’s protected free speech because the whole work is considered.

a). But when it comes to the Ten Commandments, no such leniency is shown. In Stone v. Graham, the majority wrote, “The pre-eminent purpose for posting the Ten Commandments on schoolroom walls is plainly religious in nature. The Ten Commandments are undeniably a sacred text in the Jewish and Christian faiths, and no legislative recitation of a supposed secular purpose can blind us to that fact. The Commandments do not confine themselves to arguably secular matters, such as honoring one’s parents, killing or murder, adultery, stealing, false witness, and covetousness. See Exodus 20:12-17; Deuteronomy 5:16-21. Rather, the first part of the Commandments concerns the religious duties of believers; worshipping the Lord God alone, avoiding idolatry, not using the Lord’s name in vain, and observing the Sabbath Day. See Exodus 20:1-11; Deuteronomy 5:6-15.

b). Pornographic magazines are protected because, the publication must, “be taken as a whole.” But the Ten Commandments are not allowed because, “they do not confine themselves to arguably secular matters”, but also, “concerns the religious duties of believers.” This is such a twisted interpretation; its only source of inspiration could be wicked spirits whispering into the ears of judges.

6). Stone v. Graham makes it unconstitutional to post the Ten Commandments at public schools or Courthouses. Yet two prominent Founding Fathers didn’t believe incorporating at least two of the Ten Commandments into law were unconstitutional.

a). Oliver Ellsworth, On a Religious Test for Holding Public Office. “If any test were to be made, perhaps the least exceptionable would be one requiring all persons appointed to office to declare, at the time of their admission, their belief in the being of God, and in the divine authority of the Scriptures. In favor of such a test, it may be said that one who believes these great truths will not be so likely to violate his obligations to his country as one who disbelieves them; we may have greater confidence in his integrity. But I answer: His making a declaration of such a belief is no security at all. For suppose him to be an unprincipled man who believes neither the Word no the being of God, and to be governed merely by selfish motives, how easy is it for him to dissemble!...But while I assert the rights of religious liberty, I would not deny that the civil power has a right, in some cases to interfere in matters of religion. It has a right to prohibit and punish gross immoralities and impieties; because the open practice of these is of evil example and detriment. For this reason, I heartily approve of our laws against drunkenness, profane swearing, blasphemy, and professed atheism.”

b). First printed in the Connecticut Courant and the American Mercury. Reprinted in The Annals of America, Vol. 3, 1784-1796, pp. 169-172, Published by Britannica.

c).  Oliver Ellsworth was a Connecticut delegate to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 and third Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, nominated by George Washington.

d). In McGowan v. State of Maryland, a 1961 Supreme Court case that upheld Sunday closing laws. Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote the following in the decision: “This Court has considered the happenings surrounding the Virginia General Assembly’s enactment of “An Act for Establishing Religious Freedom”, 12 Hening’s Statutes of Virginia 84, written by Thomas Jefferson and sponsored by James Madison, as best reflecting the long and intensive struggle for religious freedom in America, as particularly relevant in search for the First Amendment’s meaning. See the opinions in Everson v. Board of Education (US) supra. In 1776, nine years before the bill’s passage, Madison co-authored Virginia’s Declaration of Rights which provided, inter alia, that “all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience…” 9 Hening’s Statutes of Virginia 109, 11-112. Virginia had had Sunday legislation since early in the seventeenth century; in 1776, the laws penalizing “maintaining any opinions in matters of religion, forbearing to repair to church, or the exercising any mode of worship whatsoever” (emphasis added), were repealed, and all dissenters were freed from the taxes levied for the support of the established church. Id., at 164. The Sunday labor prohibitions remained; apparently, they were not believed to be inconsistent with the newly enacted Declaration of Rights. Madison  sought also to have the Declaration expressly condemn the existing Virginia establishment. This hope was finally realized when “A Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom” was passed in 1785. In this same year 1785, Madison presented to Virginia legislators “A Bill for Punishing…Sabbathbreakers” which provided, in part: “If any person on Sunday shall himself be found laboring at his own or any other trade or calling, or shall employ his apprentices, servants or slaves in labour, or other business, except it be in the ordinary household offices of daily necessity, or other work of necessity or charity, he shall forfeit the sum of ten shillings for every such offence, deeming every apprentice, servant, or slave so employed, and every day he shall be so employed as constituting a distinct offence.” This became law the following year and remained during the time that Madison fought for the First Amendment in the Congress. It was the law in Virginia, and similar laws were in force in other States, when Madison stated at the Virginia ratification convention: “Happily for the states, they enjoy the utmost freedom of religion…Fortunately for this commonwealth, a majority of the people are decidedly against any exclusive establishment. I believe it to be so in the other states…I can appeal to my uniform conduct on this subject, that I have warmly supported religious freedom.”

e). In this quote from a Supreme Court case in 1961 we see that James Madison, in a nine year period from 1776 to 1785, not only successfully fought for religious freedom in Virginia and against the Established Church in Virginia; he also was successful in legislating elements of the Fourth Commandment in Virginia.

d. Edwards v. Aguillard, 1987

1). This case was decided in 1987. It dealt with a Louisiana statute that required the state’s public schools to give “balanced treatment” to “creation science” and “evolution science.”

2). This decision forbids public schools from teaching that God created all life including mankind and allows them to teach exclusively that all life evolved from slime. Not only is it a God hating opinion, it is also hypocritical. This demonic effort to “suppress the truth in unrighteousness”, is interpreted by the high Court as “protecting” Louisiana and the rest of the nation from a violation of the Establishment Clause.

3). The absurd reasoning used by the majority in this case is revealed when it is shown that they have by this case, violated the same Establishment Clause they thought they were protecting.

4). In Torcaso v. Watkins, the Supreme Court from 1961 that outlawed religious tests in the individual States, also established Secular Humanism as a religion [Footnote 11], and evolution is a basic tenant of Secular Humanism.

3. The Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press Clause and the Redefining of Obscenity: “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…”

a. Roth v. U.S, 1956,

1). This case was decided in 1956.  Justice Brennan wrote this decision. This is a landmark case because it redefined obscenity. One of the Constitutional standards for obscenity as a result of this case was the material has to be taken as a whole.

2). At the beginning of the opinion Justice Brennan wrote, “The guarantees of freedom of expression in effect in 10 of the 14 States which by 1792 had ratified the Constitution, gave no absolute protection for every utterance. Thirteen of the 14 States provided for the prosecution of libel, and all of those States made either blasphemy or profanity, or both, statutory crimes. As early as 1712, Massachusetts made it criminal to publish “any filthy, obscene, or profane song, pamphlet, libel or mock sermon” in imitation or mimicking of religious services…Thus, profanity and obscenity were related offences.”

a). Some of the examples listed in footnote 12 are: “Act Against Drunkenness, Blasphemy, Connecticut, 1737; Act for the Punishment of Profane Cursing and Swearing, New Hampshire, 1791; Act to Prevent the Grievous Sins of Cursing and Swearing, North Carolina, 1700; Act for the More Effectual Suppressing of Blasphemy and Prophaneness, Rhode Island, 1703.”

b). It is obvious that the standard of early America was much stricter than what we have today. All those actions that were illegal in 17th, 18th and early 19th century America are now “protected” behaviors. They were incrementally included into the freedoms of the press and speech of the First Amendment by Supreme Court cases within the last 60 years. 20th and 21st century America is not our Founders America.

3). In this case the contemporary Constitutional standard of,  “…the material must be taken as a whole…”, was established in judging obscenity.

a). “The early leading standard of obscenity allowed material to be judged merely by the effect of an isolated excerpt upon particularly susceptible persons. Regina v. Hicklin, [1868]. Some American courts adopted this standard but later decisions have rejected it and substituted this test: whether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest. The Hicklin test, judging obscenity by the effect of an isolated passage upon the most susceptible persons, might well encompass material legitimately treating with sex, and so it must be rejected as unconstitutionally restrictive of the freedoms of speech and press.”

b). This is why magazines like Playboy are constitutionally protected. They put in articles about sports, cooking; biographies and they are “protected”.

c). Reprobate reasoning would argue that this was done for the advancement of science and freedom. But in another obscenity case, this one from 1972, Miller v. California, Chief Justice Burger wrote, “There is no evidence, empirical or historical, that the stern 19th century American censorship of public distribution and display of material relating to sex, in any way limited or affected expression of serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific ideas. On the contrary, it is beyond question that the era following Thomas Jefferson to Theodore Roosevelt was an “extraordinary vigorous period,” not just in economics and politics, but in bellesletters and in “the outlying fields of social and political philosophies.”

b. Why and How did this happen? Earlier in our nation’s history, the local, state and federal government was still guided by Biblical principles, and we still acknowledged our dependence on God. But over time “secular/profane” “rulers” and “judges” have arisen and purposed to “break their [the LORD and his anointed] bands asunder, and cast away their cords”. Because of this our nation is eating the fruit of its own ways.

1). What Isaiah wrote concerning Israel 2700 years ago now certainly applies to contemporary America. Isaiah 5:20,21,23,24: “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness…Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight….Which justify the wicked for reward, and take away the righteousness of the righteous from him! Therefore…their root shall be as rottenness, and their blossom shall go up as dust: because they have cast away the law of the LORD of hosts, and despised the word of the Holy One of Israel.”

a). In Leviticus 18 there is a list of Canaanite sexual practices that were forbidden for God’s Covenant people. Verses 6-18 deal with incest, verse 19 forbids sex when a woman is on her period. Verse 20 forbids sex with another man’s wife. Verse 21 forbids child sacrifice. Verse 22 forbids homosexuality. Verse 23 forbids bestiality. Leviticus 18:24-30 declares that if Israel engaged in these behaviors they would defile the land.  Total: 6 behaviors.

b). In Deuteronomy 18:9-14 there is another list of Canaanite  practices that God’s Covenant people were forbidden to practice. They include in verse 10, child sacrifice, and 9 different practices of witchcraft described in verses 10 and 11. Total 10 behaviors. All 10 are constitutionally protected behaviors.

c). Including both lists we have a total of 7 different behaviors. Four out of the seven practices are Constitutionally protected behaviors in 21st century America.