The Theological Foundations of US Law & Government by The Advocacy Foundation, Inc.

The e-Advocate Quarterly Magazine 1 Corinthians 6:1-11

The Theological Foundations of US Law & Government

“Helping Individuals, Organizations & Communities Achieve Their Full Potential Vol. III, Issue II – Q-2 April | May | June 2017

The Advocacy Foundation

The Theological Foundations of US Law & Government The Christ-Centered Approach to Jurisprudence Trial Preparation and Litigation ______

“Helping Individuals, Organizations & Communities Achieve Their Full Potential

1735 Market Street, Suite 3750 Philadelphia, PA 19102

| 100 Edgewood Avenue, Suite 1690 Atlanta, GA 30303

John C Johnson III, Esq. Executive Director

† (855) ADVOC8.0 (855) 238-6280 § (215) 486-2120 www.TheAdvocacyFoundation.org

Page 2 of 27

Page 3 of 27

Biblical Authority 1 Corinthians 6: 1-11 New King James Version (NKJV)

Do Not Sue the Brethren ______ 1

Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unrighteous, and not before the saints? 2 Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters? 3 Do you not know that we shall judge angels? How much more, things that pertain to this life? 4 If then you have judgments concerning things pertaining to this life, do you appoint those who are least esteemed by the church to judge? 5 I say this to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you, not even one, who will be able to judge between his brethren? 6 But brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers! 7

Now therefore, it is already an utter failure for you that you go to law against one another. Why do you not rather accept wrong? Why do you not rather let yourselves be cheated? 8 No, you yourselves do wrong and cheat, and you do these things to your brethren! 9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals,[a] nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

Page 4 of 27

Page 5 of 27

Table of Contents ______

The First Amendment The Theology of Law Introduction to Covenant Theology Old Covenant Law & Theology New Covenant Law & Theology Contemporary Theological Legal Doctrine

Law and Public Policy Ignorance Is No Defense Judicial Discretion Euthanasia Debates

Doctrine of Evasion Parens Patriae Favor Matrimonii

Church & State Separation Between Church & State The Lemon Test

Apologetics Evidential Apologetics Pre-Suppositional Apologetics

The Christian Beliefs of the Founding Fathers Traditional Believers (God Exists and Is In Control) Deists (God Exists but He Doesnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t Intervene) Theistic Rationalists The Very First Continental Congress

Moses at Mt. Sinai The Ten Commandments

US Supreme Court Decisions in Law & Theology First Amendment Decisions Church & State Decisions

Judicial Discretion Reversible Errors Miscarriages of Justice Wrongful Conviction

Page 7 of 27

The First Amendment ______ The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law Respecting An Establishment of Religion, impeding the Free Exercise of Religion, abridging the Freedom of Speech, infringing on the Freedom of the Press, interfering with the Right to Peaceably Assemble or prohibiting the Petitioning for a Governmental Redress of Grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the Ten Amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights. Initially, the First Amendment applied only to laws enacted by the Congress, and many of its provisions were interpreted more narrowly than they are today. Beginning with Gitlow v. New York (1925), the Supreme Court applied the First Amendment to [the] states—a process known as Incorporation—through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. "Freedom of religion means freedom to hold an opinion or belief, but not to take action in violation of social duties or subversive to good order," Chief Justice [Morrison] Waite wrote in Reynolds v. United States (1878). The U.S. [Supreme] Court found that while laws cannot interfere with religious belief and opinions, laws can be made to regulate some religious practices, e.g., human sacrifices, and the Hindu practice of suttee. The Court stated that to rule otherwise, "would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government would exist only in name under such circumstances." In Cantwell v. State of Connecticut the Court held that the free exercise of religion is one of the ―liberties‖ protected by the due process clause of the 14th Amendment and thus applied it to the states. The freedom to believe is absolute, but the freedom to act is not absolute. In Sherbert v. Verner (1963), the Supreme Court required states to meet the "Strict Scrutiny" standard when refusing to accommodate religiously motivated conduct. This meant that a government needed to have a "Compelling Interest" regarding such a refusal. The case involved Adele Sherbert, who was denied unemployment benefits by South Carolina because she refused to work on Saturdays, something forbidden by her Seventh-day Adventist faith. In Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972), the Court ruled that a law that "unduly burdens the practice of religion" without a compelling interest, even though it might be "neutral on its face," would be unconstitutional. The need for a compelling interest was narrowed in Employment Division v. Smith (1990), which held no such interest was required under the Free Exercise Clause regarding a law that does not target a particular religious practice. In Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah (1993), the Supreme Court ruled Hialeah had passed an ordinance banning ritual slaughter, a practice central to the Santeria religion, while providing exceptions for some practices such as the kosher slaughter. Since the ordinance was not Page 8 of 27

"generally applicable," the Court ruled that it needed to have a compelling interest, which it failed to have, and so was declared unconstitutional. In 1993, the Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which sought to restore the compelling interest requirement applied in Sherbert and Yoder. In City of Boerne v. Flores (1997), the Court struck down the provisions of the Act that forced state and local governments to provide protections exceeding those required by the First Amendment on the grounds that while the Congress could enforce the Supreme Court's interpretation of a constitutional right, the Congress could not impose its own interpretation on states and localities. According to the court's ruling in Gonzales v. UDV (2006), RFRA remains applicable to federal laws and so those laws must still have a "compelling interest".

Page 9 of 27

The Theology of Law Contemporary Theological Legal Doctrine

______

Introduction to Covenant Theology New Covenant Theology is a Christian Theological Position which teaches that the Old Testament Laws have been abrogated or cancelled with Jesus' crucifixion, and replaced with the Law of Christ of the New Covenant. It shares similarities with, and yet is distinct from, Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology and attempts to eliminate the perceived weak points of the two. New Covenant theologians, however, understand many of the Old Covenant laws as reinstituted under the New Covenant.

Old Covenant Law The Old or Mosaic Covenant is a legal or works covenant that God made with Israel on Mount Sinai. This covenant is brought to an end and is fulfilled at the cross. It was never intended to save people, but instead its purpose was to demonstrate the inability of even God's own chosen people to eradicate sin and guilt until the coming of the Messiah. The fallen world, since the fall of Adam and Eve, can only increase in sin and guilt. Israel, under the Mosaic covenant, was the physical fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant, a foreshadow of the superior New Covenant of Grace.

New Covenant Law The New Covenant is the spiritual fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant. Adherents believe that the New Covenant came into effect with Ministry of Jesus, such as at The Last Supper when Jesus said in Luke 22:20 "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you." The New Testament, echoing Jeremiah 31:33, also states: This is the covenant I will establish with the people of Israel after that time, declares the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. - Hebrews 8:10, NIV

Thus, the New Covenant is a gracious covenant. Those included in the covenant are reconciled to God by grace alone apart from anything they do. Jesus purchased a people by his death on the cross so that all those for whom he died receive full forgiveness of sins and become incurable God-lovers by the Holy Spirit. They have thus become his new creation.

Page 10 of 27

Contemporary Theological Legal Doctrine The New Covenant Theology (NCT) believes that the version of law in the Old Covenant era was the Mosaic Law, which included the Ten Commandments. The version of law in the New Covenant era is the Law of Christ, which includes the commands of Christ that pertain to the New Covenant era and the commands of his Apostles, but not the Apostolic Decree. Critics claim NCT does not have any non-Biblical historical writings to help validate their system of theology. Many critics find fault with NCT treatment of the Ten Commandments as having been abrogated. They also claim that NCT makes the mistake of claiming a different form of salvation between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant even though the 'salvation act' had not yet been carried out in the Old Testament. One such example would be from the book "New Covenant Theology" by Tom Wells and Fred Zaspel. Page 31 deals with the gospel preached to Abraham and says that it was not ―the gospel‖ but the ―promise of the gospel‖. Referring to Romans 1:2, the book states, ―Paul looks on the gospel as 'promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures' plainly implying that it had not yet come in OT times.‖

Page 11 of 27

Law and Public Policy Ignorance Is No Defense The fundamental policy in the operation of a legal system is that Ignorantia Juris Non Excusat (ignorance of the law is no excuse). It would completely undermine the enforcement of any law if the person potentially at fault was able to raise as a successful defense that he or she had not been aware of the particular law. For this reason, all the main legislatures publish their laws freely whether in hard copy or on the Internet, while others offer them for sale to the public at affordable prices. Because everyone is entitled to access the laws as they affect their personal lives, all adults are assumed responsible enough to research the law before they act. If they fail to do so, they can hardly complain if their acts prove unlawful, no matter how transiently they may be within the jurisdiction. The only exception to this rule excuses those of reduced capacity, whether as infants or through mental illness (for example, see the principle of doli incapax which raises an irrebuttable presumption in Criminal Law that an infant is incapable of committing a crime). Underpinning most social, moral and religious systems is the policy of sanctity of life (also culture of life). In UK Criminal Law, for example, duress is not allowed as a defense to murder because no threat is supposed to overcome a person's moral aversion to taking the life of another, Lord Jauncy in R v Gotts [1992] 2 AC 412 stated: The reason why duress has for so long been stated not to be available as a defense to a murder charge is that the law regards the sanctity of human life and the protection thereof as of paramount importance ... I can therefore see no justification in logic, morality or law in affording to an attempted murderer the defense which is withheld from a murderer.

Judicial Discretion A judge should always consider the underlying policies to determine whether a rule should be applied to a specific factual dispute. If laws are applied too strictly and mechanically, the law cannot keep pace with social innovation. Similarly, if there is an entirely new situation, a return to the policies forming the basic assumptions underpinning potentially relevant rules of law, identifies the best guidelines for resolving the immediate dispute. Over time, these policies evolve, becoming more clearly defined and more deeply embedded in the legal system.

Euthanasia Debates In refusal of treatment and euthanasia, commission and omission by doctors and hospital authorities resulting in the death of patients has become of increasing significance as societies debate whether the duty to preserve life outweighs the right of the autonomous patient to choose death. More contentious are those situations in which the patient is unable to make the choice personally, e.g. because in a persistent vegetative state or en ventre sa mere, i.e. a child in gestation.

Page 12 of 27

Doctrine of Evasion Similarly, in many branches of law, the Doctrine of Evasion prevents persons, both natural and artificial, from evading the application of obligations and liabilities already attaching to them. This represents a practical application of the policy that, as an outcome of the social contract, all persons owing allegiance to a state should be entitled to assume that everyone will receive fair and equal treatment before the law, i.e. there will be no favoritism or preferential treatment to any person by virtue of their rank or status within society. As such, this is an exception to the policy in the Law of Contract which usually allows the parties autonomy to enter into whatever agreement they want and which might otherwise be taken to permit the parties to exclude the normal operation of the law as between themselves (see the policy of freedom of contract).

Parens Patriae There are policies specific to all the main branches of law. Hence, one of the policies in family law is parens patriae, i.e. that the state is the default parent for all those children within its jurisdiction and that, if it is necessary to protect the interests of the child, the state will usurp the rights of the natural parents and assert its own rights as every child's legal guardian. Within the EU, the right of the child to be heard in any proceedings is a fundamental right provided in Article 24 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The views of the child shall be considered on matters which concern her/ him in accordance with her/ his age and maturity. It also provides that The Child's Best Interest shall be the primary consideration in all actions relating to children, whether taken by public authorities or private institutions.

Favor Matrimonii A policy which overlaps between family law and Contract Law is Favor Matrimonii which requires that any marriage entered into with a genuine commitment should be held valid unless there is some good reason to the contrary, matching contract law, where the preference is always to give effect to the genuine expectation of the parties.

Page 13 of 27

Church & State ______

In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the Court drew on Founding Father Thomas Jefferson's correspondence to call for "a Wall of Separation between Church and State", though the precise boundary of this separation remains in dispute. Everson used the metaphor of a Wall of Separation between Church & State, derived from the correspondence of President Thomas Jefferson. It had been long established in the decisions of the Supreme Court, beginning with Reynolds v. United States from 1879, when the Court reviewed the history of the early Republic in deciding the extent of the liberties of Mormons. Chief Justice Morrison Waite, consulted the historian George Bancroft, who discussed at some length the Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments by James Madison, who drafted the First Amendment; Madison used the metaphor of a "great barrier." Justice Hugo Black adopted Jefferson's words in the voice of the Court. The Court has affirmed it often, with majority, but not unanimous, support. Warren Nord, in Does God Make a Difference?, characterized the general tendency of the dissents as a weaker reading of the First Amendment; the dissents tend to be "less concerned about the dangers of establishment and less concerned to protect free exercise rights, particularly of religious minorities." Beginning with the Everson decision itself, which permitted New Jersey school boards to pay for transportation to parochial schools, the Court has used various tests to determine when the wall of separation has been breached. The Everson decision laid down the test that establishment existed when aid was given to religion, but that the transportation was justifiable because the benefit to the children was more important. In the school prayer cases of the early 1960s, (Engel v. Vitale and Abington School District v. Schempp), aid seemed irrelevant; the Court ruled on the basis that a legitimate action both served a secular purpose and did not primarily assist religion. In Walz v. Tax Commission (1970), the Court ruled that a legitimate action could not entangle government with religion; in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; tuition reimbursements for Catholic School students by a state school system), these points were combined, declaring that: An Action Was Not Establishment If: 1. 2. 3.

The Statute (or Practice) Has a Secular Purpose; Its Principal or Primary Effect Neither Advances Nor Inhibits Religion; and It Does Not Foster An Excessive Government Entanglement With Religion.

This Lemon Test has been criticized by justices and legal scholars, but it remains the predominant means by which the Court enforces the Establishment Clause. In Agostini v. Felton (1997), the Entanglement Prong of the Lemon test was demoted to simply being a factor in determining the effect of the challenged statute or practice. In Zelman v. SimmonsHarris (2002), the opinion of the Court considered Secular Purpose and the absence of Primary Effect; a concurring opinion saw both cases as having treated entanglement as part of the primary purpose test.

Page 14 of 27

Apologetics ______ Apologetics (from Greek ἀπολογία, "speaking in defense") is the discipline of defending a position (often religious) through the systematic use of information (Evidence). Early Christian writers (c. 120–220) who defended their faith against critics and recommended their faith to outsiders were called Apologists. Christian apologetics combines Christian theology, natural theology, and philosophy to present a rational basis for the Christian faith, to defend the faith against objections and misrepresentation, and to expose error within other religions and world views. Christian apologists of many traditions, in common with Jews, Muslims, and some others, argue for the existence of a unique and personal God. Christian apologists employ a variety of philosophical and formal approaches, including ontological, cosmological, and teleological arguments. Many Christian apologists also note, however, that the Gospel is the best defense and living a life according to the tenets of Jesus' teachings is the best argument.

Evidential Apologetics Evidential Apologetics or Evidentialism is an approach to Christian Apologetics emphasizing the use of Evidence to demonstrate that God exists. The evidence is supposed to be evidence both the believer and nonbeliever share, that is to say one need not presuppose God's existence. Evidentialism is a theory of justification according to which the justification of a belief depends solely on the evidence for it. The claim is that a belief is justified only if one's evidence supports that belief.

Pre-Suppositional Apologetics Pre-Suppositionalism is a school of Christian apologetics that believes the Christian faith is the only basis for rational thought. It presupposes that the Bible is divine revelation and attempts to expose flaws in other worldviews. It claims that apart from presuppositions, one could not make sense of any human experience, and there can be no set of neutral assumptions from which to reason with a non-Christian. Pre-Suppositionalists claim that a Christian cannot consistently declare her/ his belief in the necessary existence of the God of the Bible and simultaneously argue on the basis of a different set of assumptions that God may not exist and Biblical revelation may not be true. Two schools of pre-suppositionalism exist, based on the different teachings of Cornelius Van Til and Gordon Haddon Clark. Pre-Suppositionalism contrasts with classical apologetics and evidential apologetics.

Page 15 of 27

The Christian Beliefs of the

Founding Fathers ______

Traditional Believers (God Exists and Is In Control) Historian Richard B. Morris in 1973 identified the following seven figures as the key Founding Fathers: John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and George Washington. Of the 55 delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention, 49 were Protestants, and two were Roman Catholics (D. Carroll, and Fitzsimons). Among the Protestant delegates to the Constitutional Convention, 28 were Church of England (or Episcopalian, after the American Revolutionary War was won), eight were Presbyterians, seven were Congregationalists, two were Lutherans, two were Dutch Reformed, and two were Methodists.

Deists (God Exists but He Doesnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t Intervene)

Deism holds that God does not intervene with the functioning of the natural world in any way, allowing it to run according to the laws of nature. A few prominent Founding Fathers were Anti-Clerical Christians, such as Thomas Jefferson (who created the so-called "Jefferson Bible") and Benjamin Franklin. Others (most notably Thomas Paine) were Deists, or at least held beliefs very similar to those of deists.

Theistic Rationalists Historian Gregg L. Frazer argues that the leading Founders (Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, Wilson, Morris, Madison, Hamilton, and Washington) were neither Christians nor Deists, but rather supporters of a hybrid "Theistic Rationalism".

The Very First Continental Congress The First Continental Congress met briefly in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in 1774 and consisted of fifty-six delegates from twelve of the Thirteen Colonies that would become the United States of America. The delegates, who included George Washington, soon to command the army, Patrick Henry, and John Adams, were elected by their respective colonial assemblies. Other notable delegates included Samuel Adams from Massachusetts, John Dickinson from Pennsylvania and New York's John Jay. This congress in addition to formulating appeals to the British crown, established the Continental Association to administer boycott actions against Britain.

Page 16 of 27

When the Second Continental Congress came together on May 10, 1775, it was, in effect, a reconvening of the First Congress. Many of the same 56 delegates who attended the first meeting participated in the second. Notable new arrivals included Benjamin Franklin and Robert Morris of Pennsylvania, John Hancock of Massachusetts, and John Witherspoon of New Jersey. Hancock was elected Congress President two weeks into the session when Peyton Randolph was summoned back to Virginia to preside over the House of Burgesses. Thomas Jefferson replaced Randolph in the Virginia congressional delegation. The second Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence. John Witherspoon (NJ) was the only active clergyman to sign the Declaration. He also signed the Articles of Confederation and attended the New Jersey (1787) convention that ratified the Federal Constitution. The newly founded country of the United States had to create a new government to replace the British Parliament. The Americans adopted the Articles of Confederation, a declaration that established a national government which was made up of a one-house legislature. Its ratification by all thirteen colonies gave the second Congress a new name: the Congress of the Confederation, which met from 1781 to 1789. Later, the Constitutional Convention took place in 1787, in Philadelphia. Although the Convention was called to revise the Articles of Confederation, the intention from the outset of many of its proponentsâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;chief among them James Madison and Alexander Hamiltonâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;was to create a new government rather than try to fix the inadequate existing one. The delegates elected George Washington to preside over the Convention. The result of the Convention was the United States Constitution.

Page 17 of 27

Moses at Mount Sinai The Ten Commandments ______ Moses (Hebrew: ‫מֹשה‬ ֶׁ , Modern; Moshe Tiberian; Mōšéh Moše; Syriac: Moushe; Arabic: Mūsā was, according to the Hebrew Bible, the Qur'an, and Baha'i scripture, a former Egyptian prince and warrior, later turned Religious Leader, Lawgiver, And Prophet, to whom the authorship of the Torah is traditionally attributed. Also called Moshe Rabbenu in Hebrew ( , Lit. "Moses our Teacher/ Rabbi"), he is the most important prophet in Judaism. He is also an important prophet in Christianity and Islam, as well as a number of other faiths. According to the Bible, after crossing the Red Sea and leading the Israelites towards the desert, Moses was summoned by God to Mount Sinai, also referred to as Mount Horeb, the same place where Moses had first talked to the Burning Bush, tended the flocks of Jethro his father-in-law, and later produced water by striking the rock with his staff and directed the battle with the Amalekites. Moses stayed on the mountain for 40 days and nights, a period in which he received the Ten Commandments directly from God. Moses then descended from the mountain with intent to deliver the commandments to the people, but upon his arrival he saw that the people were involved in the sin of the Golden Calf. In terrible anger, Moses broke the commandment tablets and ordered his own tribe (the Levites) to go through the camp and kill everyone, including family and friends, upon which the Levites killed about 3,000 people, some of whom were children. God later commanded Moses to inscribe two other tablets, to replace the ones Moses smashed, so Moses went to the mountain again, for another period of 40 days and nights, and when he returned, the commandments were finally given. In Jewish tradition, Moses is referred to as "The Lawgiver" for this singular achievement of delivering the Ten Commandments. The law attributed to Moses, specifically the laws set out in Deuteronomy, as a consequence came to be considered supreme over all other sources of authority (the king and his officials), and the Levite priests were the guardians and interpreters of the law.

"Mosaic Law" came to refer to the entire legal content of the Pentateuch, not just the Ten Commandments explicitly connected to Moses in the biblical narrative. The content of this law was excerpted and codified in Rabbinical Judaism as the 613 Mitzvot. By Late Antiquity, the tradition of Moses being the source of the law in the Pentateuch also gave rise to the tradition of Mosaic authorship, the interpretation of the entire Torah as the work of Moses. For Christians, Moses — mentioned more often in the New Testament than any other Old Testament figure — is often a symbol of God's law, as reinforced and expounded on in the teachings of Jesus. New Testament writers often compared Jesus' words and deeds with Moses' to explain Jesus' mission. In Acts 7:39–43, 51–53, for example, the rejection of Moses by the Jews who worshiped the golden calf is likened to the rejection of Jesus by the Jews that continued in traditional Judaism.

Page 18 of 27

Moses also figures in several of Jesus' messages. When he met the Pharisees Nicodemus at night in the third chapter of the Gospel of John, he compared Moses' lifting up of the bronze serpent in the wilderness, which any Israelite could look at and be healed, to his own lifting up (by his death and resurrection) for the people to look at and be healed. In the sixth chapter, Jesus responded to the people's claim that Moses provided them manna in the wilderness by saying that it was not Moses, but God, who provided. Calling himself the "bread of life", Jesus stated that He was provided to feed God's people. Moses, along with Elijah, is presented as meeting with Jesus in all three Gospel accounts of the Transfiguration of Jesus in Matthew 17, Mark 9, and Luke 9, respectively. Later Christians found numerous other parallels between the life of Moses and Jesus to the extent that Jesus was likened to a "second Moses." For instance, Jesus' escape from the slaughter by Herod in Bethlehem is compared to Moses' escape from Pharaoh's designs to kill Hebrew infants. Such parallels, unlike those mentioned above, are not pointed out in Scripture. See the article on typology. His relevance to modern Christianity has not diminished. Moses is considered to be a saint by several churches; and is commemorated as a prophet in the respective Calendars of Saints of the Eastern Orthodox Church, Roman Catholic Church, and Lutheran churches on September 4. He is commemorated as one of the Holy Forefathers in the Calendar of Saints of the Armenian Apostolic Church on July 30. The existence of Moses as well as the veracity of the Exodus story are disputed among archaeologists and Egyptologists, with experts in the field of biblical criticism citing logical inconsistencies, new archaeological evidence, historical evidence, and related origin myths in Canaanite culture. According to the Book of Exodus, Moses was born in a time when his people, the Children of Israel, were increasing in numbers and the Egyptian Pharaoh was worried that they might ally with Egypt's enemies. Moses' Hebrew mother, Jochebed, secretly hid him when the Pharaoh ordered all newborn Hebrew boys to be killed upon the circulating prophecy among Egyptian priests of a messianic deliverer among the Hebrew slaves. After killing an Egyptian slave master, Moses fled across the Red Sea to Midian, where he encountered the God of Israel in the form of a "Burning Bush". God sent Moses back to Egypt to demand the release of the Israelites from slavery. After the Ten Plagues, Moses led the Exodus of the Israelites out of Egypt and across the Red Sea, after which they based themselves at Mount Sinai, where Moses received the Ten Commandments. After 40 years of wandering in the desert, Moses died within sight of the Promised Land. In the Hebrew Bible, the narratives of Moses are in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. According to the Book of Exodus, Moses was a son of Amram, a member of the Levite tribe of Israel descended from Jacob, and his wife, Jochebed. Jochebed (also Yocheved) was kin to Amram's father Kehath (Exodus 6:20). Moses had one older (by seven Page 19 of 27

years) sister, Miriam, and one older (by three years) brother, Aaron. According to Genesis 46:11, Amram's father Kehath immigrated to Egypt with 70 of Jacob's household, making Moses part of the second generation of Israelites born during their time in Egypt. In the Exodus account, the birth of Moses occurred at a time when an unnamed Egyptian Pharaoh had commanded that all male Hebrew children born be killed by drowning in the river Nile. Jochebed, the wife of the Levite Amram, bore a son and kept him concealed for three months. When she could keep him hidden no longer, rather than deliver him to be killed, she set him in a marsh on the Nile River in a small craft of bulrushes coated in pitch. Moses' sister Miriam observed the tiny boat until the Pharaoh's daughter (Bithiah, Thermuthis) came to bathe with her handmaidens. It is said that she spotted the baby in the basket and had her handmaiden fetch it for her. Miriam came forward and asked Pharaoh's daughter whether she would like a Hebrew woman to nurse the baby. Thereafter, Jochebed was employed as the child's nurse. Moses grew up and was brought to Pharaoh's daughter and became her son and a younger brother to the future Pharaoh of Egypt. Moses would not be able to become Pharaoh because he was not the 'blood' son of Bithiah, and [because] he was the youngest.

Page 20 of 27

US Supreme Court Decisions on

Law & Theology ______

First Amendment Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652, 45 S. Ct. 625, 69 L. Ed. 1138, 1925 U.S. (1925) Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878) Cantwell v. State of Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940) Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963) Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520113 S. Ct. 2217 (1993) City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997) Gonzales v. UDV, 546 U.S. 418 (2006)

Church & State Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947) Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879) Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962) Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) Walz v. Tax Commission, 397 U.S. 664 (1970) Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971) Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203 (1997) Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639 (2002)

Page 21 of 27

Judicial Discretion ______ Judicial Discretion is the term many practitioners use to describe the ―leeway‖ given to judges in many, if not most, cases which can lead to miscarriages of justice due to certain aspects of subjective (unique to a jurists own point of view) trial management. This is the ―human‖ element, which, when improperly interjected into the trial process, can lead to devastatingly tragic consequences for both defendants and society.

Reversible Errors There are many kinds of error in law. Reversible Error can lead to a judgment being overturned on appeal. Harmless Error is distinguished from Plain Error in that if error is preserved by the making of a timely objection, the Burden Of Proof is on the respondent to show that the error was harmless, but if error was not preserved, the burden of proof is on the appellant to show that the error was plain.

Miscarriages of Justice A Miscarriage of Justice primarily is the conviction and punishment of a person for a crime he or she did not commit. The term can also apply to errors in the other direction— "errors of impunity", and to civil cases. Most criminal justice systems have some means to overturn, or "quash", a wrongful conviction, but this is often difficult to achieve. In some instances a wrongful conviction is not overturned for several years, or until after the innocent person has been executed, released from custody, or has died.

Wrongful Conviction "Miscarriage of justice" is sometimes synonymous with Wrongful Conviction, referring to a conviction reached in an unfair or disputed trial. Wrongful convictions are frequently cited by Death Penalty opponents as cause to eliminate death penalties to avoid executing innocent persons. In recent years, DNA Evidence has been used to clear many people falsely convicted. While a miscarriage of justice is a Type I Error for falsely identifying culpability, an Error of Impunity would be a Type II Error of failing to find a culpable person guilty. However, the term "miscarriage of justice" is often used to describe the latter type as well. Also, the term Travesty of Justice is sometimes used for a gross, deliberate miscarriage of justice. The usage of the term in a specific case is, however, inherently biased due to different opinions about the case. Show Trials (not in the sense of high publicity, but in the sense of lack of regard to the actual legal procedure and fairness), due to their character, often lead to such travesties. The concept of miscarriage of justice has important implications for Standard of Review, in that an Appellate Court will often only exercise its discretion to correct plain error when a miscarriage of justice (or "manifest injustice") would otherwise occur. Causes of miscarriages of justice include: Page 22 of 27

              

Plea Bargains that offer incentives for the innocent to plead guilty, sometimes called an innocent prisoner's dilemma Confirmation Bias on the part of investigators Withholding or Destruction of Evidence by police or prosecution Fabrication of evidence or outright Perjury by police (see testifying), or prosecution witnesses (e.g., Charles Randal Smith) Biased editing of evidence Prejudice towards the class of people to which the defendant belongs Misidentification of the perpetrator by witnesses and/or victims Overestimation/underestimation of the evidential value of expert testimony Contaminated evidence Faulty forensic tests False Confessions due to police pressure or psychological weakness Misdirection of a jury by a judge during trial Perjured Evidence by the real guilty party or their accomplices (frame-up) Perjured evidence by supposed victim or their accomplices Conspiracy between court of appeal judges and prosecutors to uphold conviction of innocent

Risk of miscarriages of justice is one of the main arguments against the death penalty. Where condemned persons are executed promptly after conviction, the most significant effect of a miscarriage of justice is irreversible. Wrongly executed people nevertheless occasionally receive posthumous pardons—which essentially void the conviction—or have their convictions quashed. Many death penalty states hold condemned persons for ten or more years before execution, so that any new evidence that might acquit them (or, at least, provide reasonable doubt) will have had time to surface. Even when a wrongly convicted person is not executed, years in prison can have a substantial, irreversible effect on the person and their family. The risk of miscarriage of justice is therefore also an argument against long sentences, like life sentence, and cruel sentence conditions. Wrongful convictions appear at first to be "rightful" arrests and subsequent convictions, and also include a public statement about a particular crime having occurred, as well as a particular individual or individuals having committed that crime. If the conviction turns out to be a miscarriage of justice, then one or both of these statements is ultimately deemed to be false. During this time between the miscarriage of justice and its correction, the public holds false beliefs about the occurrence of a crime, the perpetrator of a crime, or both. While the public audience of a miscarriage of justice certainly varies, they may in some cases be as large as an entire nation or multitude of nations. In cases where a large-scale audience is unknowingly witness to a miscarriage of justice, the news-consuming public may develop false beliefs about the nature of crime itself. It may also cause the public to falsely believe that certain types of crime exist, or that certain types of people tend to commit these crimes, or that certain crimes are more commonly prevalent than they actually are. Thus, wrongful convictions can ultimately mold a society's popular beliefs about crime. Because our understanding of crime is socially constructed, it has been shaped by many factors other than its actual occurrence. Page 23 of 27

Mass media may also be faulted for distorting the public perception of crime by overrepresenting certain races and genders as criminals and victims, and for highlighting more sensational and invigorating types of crimes as being more newsworthy. The way a media presents crime-related issues may have an influence not only on a society's fear of crime but also on its beliefs about the causes of criminal behavior and desirability of one or another approach to crime control. Ultimately, this may have a significant impact on critical public beliefs about emerging forms of crime such as cybercrime, global crime, and terrorism. In June 2012, the National Registry of Exonerations, a joint project of the University of Michigan Law School and Northwestern University Law School, initially reported 873 individual exonerations in the U.S. from January 1989 through February 2012; the report called this number "tiny" in a country with 2.3 million people in prisons and jails, but asserted that there are far more false convictions than exonerations There have also been instances of Wrongful Executions that have taken place. Statistics likely understate the actual problem of wrongful convictions because once an execution has occurred there is often insufficient motivation and finance to keep a case open, and it becomes unlikely at that point that the miscarriage of justice will ever be exposed. In the case of Joseph Roger O'Dell III, executed in Virginia in 1997 for a rape and murder, a prosecuting attorney bluntly argued in court in 1998 that if posthumous DNA results exonerated O'Dell, "it would be shouted from the rooftops that ... Virginia executed an innocent man." The state prevailed, and the evidence was destroyed. * excerpts from www.wikipedia.com

Page 24 of 27

Budget

Subtotal:

Instructional Services 29 Salaries - Teachers 30 Salaries - Other (Professional) 31 Salaries - Paraprofessionals 32 Salaries - Support/Clerical 33 Contracted Services, Instructional 34 Instructional Technology in Classrooms 35 Instructional Supplies & Materials 36 Testing & Assessment 37 Professional Development, Instructional 38 Dues, Licenses, and Subscriptions 39 Staff Stipends in addition to base salary 40 Purchased Management Services 41 Other: Expeditionary Learning School Support

27 Other: 28

OPERATING EXPENDITURES Administration 12 Salaries - Administrative (Professional) 13 Salaries - Administrative (Support/Clerical) 14 Accounting-Audit 15 Legal 16 Payroll 17 Other Professional Services 18 Information Management and Technology 19 Office Supplies and Materials 20 Professional Development, Administrative/Board 21 Dues, Licenses, and Subscriptions 22 Fundraising 23 Recruitment/Advertising 24 Travel expenses for staff/Board 25 Bank Charges - Current (Short Term) 26 Purchased Management Services

5 Nutrition Funding - State & Federal 6 Program Fees 7 Contributions, in-kind 8 Contributions, in-cash 9 Investment Income 10 Transportation Reimbursements 11 TOTAL OPERATING REVENUES

OPERATING REVENUES 1 Tuition 2 Grants - State 3 Grants - Federal 4 Grants - Private

MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS A Per Pupil Tuition B Student Enrollment C Facility Size (square footage) D Cost per square foot E Staff FTE: (1.0 FTE = 40 hours) E1. Administrative (Professional) E2. Administrative (Support/Clerical) E3. Instructional: Teachers E4. Instructional: Other (Professional) E5. Instructional: Paraprofessionals E6. Instructional: Salaries - Support/Clerical E7. Other Student Services E8. Operation and Maintenance of Plant F Staff FTE: Subtotal:

20,000

30,000

49,250

65,000

15,000 4,000

15,000 1,000

47,000 44,000

528,000 65,000

4,000 22,800 2,850 8,000 1,000

Special Education

General Education

210,200

25,000 10,200 4,000 2,000 4,000 5,000 5,000 2,000

3,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 5,000

68,000 45,000 25,000 10,000 5,000

Genera l Education

65,000

12,000 15,200 5,000 10,000 1,000

1,003,220 66,950

10,000 5,000

30,000 1,000

96,820 56,650

Special Education

215,990

15,000 15,600 5,000 2,000 4,000 5,000 10,000 3,000

70,040 46,350 25,000 10,000 5,000

2,298,332

86,640 22,562 5,000 20,000 7,000

52,000 13,537 5,000 10,000 5,000 1,480,815

160,000 35,000

1,177,278 100,000 93,000 25,000

17,000 11,250 10,000

115,000

5,000 10,000

100,000

1,962,130

0.5 1 28.5

0.5 1 17.8

0.5

10,327 190 20,000 4 1 1 23 2

10,327 114 11,000 4

Year 2 FY2012

1 1 12.5 1.8

0 0 0

Year 1 FY2011

The Theological Law Firm Academy

0.25 0.25

Pre-Operational Period FY2010

Operating Budget: Projected Revenues and Expenditures

Charter School:

65,000

16,000 7,600 7,000 10,000 1,000

1,182,904 68,958

General Education

1.5 1 34

1 1 27 2.5

10,327 228 23,000 4

5,000 5,000

42,000 1,000

149,587 84,872

Special Education

233,182

15,000 22,800 4,000 2,000 8,000 5,000 12,000 4,500

72,141 47,741 25,000 10,000 5,000

2,766,599

103,968 27,075 5,000 35,000 9,000

192,000 40,000

2,354,556

Year 3 FY2013

Instructional Services 29 Classroom Teachers, SPED Teachers, ELL Teachers (.5 Year 1), Arts/Media Specialists, Associate Teachers 30 Principal, DSFS (.8 Year 1), Speech Pathologist (.5 Year 3) 31 32 33 Contracted SPED/Counseling Services 1K/Student (20% SPED pop) 34 $100/student grades 2-8, Adaptive Software, Assistive Technology 35 Instructional Supplies, $250/student in new grades 36 $25/student standardized tests, $5K/new grade sped testing 37 Non Exped. Learning professional development 38 Subscriptions to Educational Publications, Licenses to professional development resources 39 Clubs taught by volunteers 40 N/A 41 EL Contract including PD, School Designer on site 3X/month

12 E.D. 13 Office Manager 14 Accounting Mgmt. Solutions (AMS) fiscal policies and procedures development, indep. Audit 15 Pro bono during pre-op period 16 HR Knowledge payroll service provider, HR systems support 17 18 Data management systems, administrative IT supplies and repair 19 Estimated @ $600/staff member 20 Board/E.D. Professional/Governance Development 21 MA Charter School Association, other subscriptions 22 Fundraising Events, Grant-Writing 23 Recruiting/advertising for students, staff, and board members 24 Travel expenses for staff/Board to Expeditionary Learning Institutes and other PD 25 Short-term line of credit to be paid off in 3 mos. 26 contract. 27 28

OPERATING EXPENDITURES Administration (Non-instructional costs)

5 Meals reimbursed @ $2.7725/Free, $2.3725/Reduced, .3125/Paid. Assumed Population: 60%FR, 15%R, 25%P 6 Meal fees from paid and reduced 7 Office Space Startup Period, Donated furniture and equipment. 8 Parent Fundraising, Annual Gala (year 2), Individual Donors 9 Income from savings and money market accounts 10 Buses provided by sending district 11

OPERATING REVENUES 1 2 Startup Grant: Targeted area, Extended Day, single $200K grant spent by 12/31/11 3 Title Grants, Conservative based on MA charters with similar pop's 4 Grants awarded by private foundations or corporations.

MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS A Based on projected rate for New Bedford 2011 B Assumes 95% capacity due to attrition C Based on market and site described in Facilities Section D Based on market and site described in Facilities Section E E1. E.D. E2. Office Manager E3. Classroom Teachers, SPED Teachers, ELL Teachers (.5 Year 1), Arts/Media Specialists, Associate Teachers E4. Principal, DSFS (.8 Year 1), Speech Pathologist (.5 Year 3) E5. N/A E6. N/A E7. Nurse (.5), Counselor (.5 Year 3) E8. Custodian F

Notes

Program Evaluation Subtotal:

76 SURPLUS/(DEFICIT)

75 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENDITURES 9,875

105,125

2,875

74 Contingency Fund

1,000

Subtotal:

1,000

2,000

50,000

Community Services (Including Dissemination) 71 Dissemination Activities 72 Civic Activities 73 Subtotal:

Fixed Charges 64 Payroll taxes 65 Fringe Benefits 66 Insurance (non-employee) 67 Purchased Management Services 68 Other: 69 Other: 70

50 Other: Alma Days After School Clubs 51 Other: 52 Other: Uniform Cost Reduction 53 Subtotal: Operation and Maintenance of Plant 54 Salaries - Operation and Maintenance of Plant 55 Utilities 56 Maintenance of Buildings & Grounds 57 Maintenance of Equipment 58 Rental/Lease of Buildings & Grounds 59 Rental/Lease of Equipment 60 Capital Debt Service 61 Renovation/Construction 62 Acquisition of Capital Equipment 63 Subtotal:

Other Student Services 44 Salaries - Other Student Services 45 Health Services 46 Student Transportation (to and from school) 47 Food Services 48 Athletic Services 49 Purchased Management Services

42 Other: 43

18,540 50,000 10,000 2,000 120,000 6,000

10,000

18,000 27,500 5,000 1,000 66,000 6,000 20,000 30,000

7,122

1,473,693

22,212

6,000 8,000 14,000

98,661

20,261 68,400 10,000

27,221

2,271,111

57,458

10,000 12,000 22,000

152,958

31,808 111,150 10,000

216,540

4,000 4,750 1,900 223,325

2,400 2,850 1,140 127,470

173,500

23,175 5,000 66,500 118,000

5,000 1,183,370 199,470

22,500 5,000 22,800 70,780

5,000 701,650 126,000

24,911

2,741,688

69,165

12,000 14,000 26,000

193,271

42,196 141,075 10,000

244,596

6,000

19,096 57,500 12,000 3,000 138,000 9,000

4,560 6,650 2,280 324,553

74,263 5,000 79,800 152,000

5,000 1,363,462 287,459

74 Contigency at %1.5 of revenue Year 1, 2.5% Years 2-3

71 Expedition Nights, digitizing and archiving student work, conference/workshop presentations 72 Parent Advisory Board meetings, Alma Days seaside picnic, non-academic community service days 73

Fixed Charges 64 MTRS: 1.45% + 1% unemployment; Non-MTRS 1.45% for medicare + 1% unemployment+6.2% FICA 65 75% of health @ $450 (Single)/$1,000 (Family); 50% of Dental @ $50S/$75F; $250 life and disability; 60% part 66 Insurance for board, property, fire and liability 67 N/A 68 69 70

50 Supplies for Alma Days Orientation, $20/student 51 After School Club Supplies $25/Student. Clubs run by volunteers. 52 Subsidized uniforms for students based on need 53 Operation and Maintenance of Plant 54 Custodian 55 $2.50/sq. ft, based on market and facility described 56 Building maintenance (based on decribed facility), cleaning supplies 57 Maintenance of instructional equipment (copiers, printers, projectors) 58 $6/Sq Ft, includes $108K renovations amortized over 3 years 59 Lease of copiers @3,000 each 60 Annual payments for long-term capital debt. 61 Renovations to facility to accommodate growing population 62 Cost of capital equipment (including computers, furniture, kitchen etc.), based on quote from R.V. Leonard Co.

Other Student Services 44 Nurse (.5), Counselor (.5 Year 3) 45 Nurse supplies 46 Transportation for Fieldwork, $200/Student Year 1, $350/student Years 2-3 47 Approx. $3/student/day 48 49

42 Staff/Student/Community Surveys 43

Notes ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 25 of 27

Page 26 of 27

Page 27 of 27