The Lawful & Legal Status Of The Moorish

Science Temple Of America / Moorish Divine &

National Movement
Milton Moore-Bey

August 23, 2016

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1247149861995810

The Moorish Science Temple of America is a spiritual entity and a legal entity. It is a theocratic body politic
ordained by God Allah, because Allah called out this society unto himself, so the MST of A is a true house of
God. The organization, doctrines and purpose of this Moorish Divine and National Movement are all laid out by
the Prophet Noble Drew Ali in all his measures. The corporate structure of the MST of A is Heavenly (spiritual)
and Fleshly (earthly).

The MST of A provides spiritual/eternal good to its members, but it also has the power to secure temporal
benefits for its members. Its jurisdiction is both spiritual and earthly. What these so-called sovereignty
movements don't understand, is that we must adhere to civil government as regards to earthly matters, but we
are not to be under civil government with regards to spiritual matters, which include many activities and actions
as shown in the Holy Koran of the MST of A and in the Holy Quran of Mecca.

The Prophet ordained the Temple by building it on the solid rock of salvation. The MST of A is an ordained
spiritual entity, which is also a legal entity that functions like a business-(corporation) and the members of the
Temple are shareholders/stockholders of the corporation-(Our Vast Estate), which is our economic security and
the corporation is also an entity that works with civil government, but not under it in concerns of a
spiritual/religious nature. The MST of A is a religious institution, which is a local autonomous body of believers;
and as such, it is a Moorish Holy Temple of Science for the habitation of God through the spirit, is one flesh with
its Prophet; and espoused to him as a chaste virgin to one husband.

The MST of A, which is under God Allah, owes no allegiance to any tribunal, except to that of God Allah and the
Prophet Noble Drew Ali. The MST of A is the body of the Prophet Noble Drew Ali and the Prophet is also the
Head! Civil government does not have the authority to rule over the MST of A. Allah and the Prophet Noble
Drew Ali are the only Heads or Sovereigns over the MST of A. The Noble Prophet Drew Ali is the head of the
body, the Temple, he is the beginning,

1
the first born of the dead and he has preeminence in all things of the Moorish Science Temple of
America/Moorish Divine & National Movement (Colossians 1:18)!

The Prophet Noble Drew Ali built the MST of A on a solid rock of salvation and the gates of hell shall not prevail
against it (Matthew 16:18)! The spiritual/religious side of the MST of A exists alone, no state nor federal
government permission required. The 1st Amendment protects against the state and federal government from
making a law that would respect an establishment of religion or prohibit the free exercise of ones belief!

The Greek word "ecclesia," means"CALLED OUT" referring to all those, living or dead, who have accepted the
teachings of Jesus the Conqueror and it also refers to the divine nation/government that is called out by God
himself. The MST of A is a religious institution that is not controlled by the state nor the federal government.

The MST of A is not under the state's nor the federal government's jurisdiction as a corporation under section
501(c)(3), which is under Title 26 of the Internal Revenue Code (U.S. Code). The state nor the federal
government can not prevent our clergy from having any political influence on its members or the public in
general. The state nor the federal government can not regulate what is to be said and not to be said. The MST
of A displays the Moorish flag and the American flag.

Our faith is in God Allah and his Prophet Noble Drew Ali and not in state nor federal government. The MST of A
does not exist by permission of the state nor federal government, we exist by God Allah alone. The MST of A
will never ever sign away our Birthright for a so-called benefit: "Tax-exempt corporation"! The MST of A has the
right to speak on politics with no restrictions. The IRS can not prohibit the MST of A from directly or indirectly
participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for
elective public office.

A civil government, as defined by God, is made up of men under God ruling over man in earthly matters. The
primary God ordained purpose of civil government is to control evil men, thereby maintaining some degree of
peace in this present world. Civil government has authority to punish those who commit certain crimes against
their fellow man and to reward those who do good. The Moorish Science Temple of America is indeed a true
"ecclesia", called out” by the God Allah! When Jesus said to Peter, as recorded in Matthew 16.18, “That thou art
Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church,” He was speaking of the Moorish Science Temple of America,
Moorish Divine & National Movement!

2
The organization, doctrines, and purposes of this new and distinct type of “ecclesia” were all laid out by the
Prophet Noble Drew Ali in the Holy Koran of the Moorish Science Temple of America. The ultimate God-given
purpose of both the Moorish Science Temple of America and the state (civil government) is to glorify God, each
acting under God and His principles, but neither acting under the other.

However, the underlying purposes and jurisdictions of a religious society (MST of A) and civil government (The
State) are significantly different. The underlying purpose of the state is fleshly or earthly; and the underlying
purpose of the the MST of A is heavenly or spiritual. God ordained religious institutions to provide spiritual or
eternal good. God gave nations earthly power to secure temporal benefits for mankind. The jurisdiction of a
nation is earthly and that a religious society is spiritual. God gave neither the religious society nor the state
authority to rule over the other.

The Prophet Noble Drew Ali tells the Moors to adhere to civil government as it regards to certain earthly
matters, but Moorish Americans and the Temple are not to be under the civil government with regard to
spiritual matters, which include many activities and actions as shown in the Holy Koran of the MST of A and the
Holy Quran of Mecca. Jesus ordained the church (representing all religious societies): “And I [Jesus] say also
unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail
against it.

The MST of A is protected by the same law that the church is protected by. So just like that of the church, the
MST of A is a local autonomous body of believers. So once again, the MST of A owes no allegiance to any
tribunal in the universe, except to that of God Allah and his Prophet Noble Drew Ali.

The civil government does not meet the qualifications needed to rule over a religious society and those matters
assigned to a religious society by God. Civil government, as already mentioned, does not have the authority
given it from God to oversee or rule over a religious society. Since civil government is usually led by the
unregenerate, it does not have the nature or wisdom to handle spiritual matters.

Moorish American Moslems do have such nature and wisdom, as proclaimed by Paul: “Having made known
unto us the mystery of his will, according to his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath proposed in
himself.” He made clear that only the born-again believer (a person who is at oneness with God Allah), led by
the Spirit, was qualified to handle spiritual matters.

3
Paul also asserted that rulers, “the princes of this world,” do not possess spiritual wisdom, indicating that most
leaders are not Moslems (undoubtedly, almost all leaders, and almost all leaders of civil government when he
wrote the above words, are not and were not Moslems) and are blind to spiritual matters.

The federal government was given some authority over the contracts created by incorporation because of the
contract clause of Article I, Section 10 of the United States Constitution. The church sought incorporation partly
to gain federal government protection of the contract with the state.

So the Incorporation of the MST of A created a contract which places the incorporated “Temple”under the
contract clause of Article I Section 10 of the United States Constitution: “The home rule charter of the MST of A,
is also a contract and entitled to protection under the provision of the Constitution of the United States
prohibiting the states from passing any law impairing the obligation of contract.” The contract clause reads in
relevant part: “No State shall … pass any … Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts….”

The home rule charter of the MST of A is a covenant/contract of a threefold nature; that is, a contract between
the state and the MST of A, a contract between the MST of A and its members, and a contract between the
members inter se (between themselves).

The home rule charter of the MST of A is also spoken of as a covenant/contract between the state of Illinois and
the Prophet Noble Drew Ali.

Other covenants/contracts are created by the bylaws of the MST of A:

covenants/contracts between the members of the MST of A, and

covenants/contracts between the MST of A and its members.

The multiple covenants/contracts created by the articles of incorporation and the bylaws connects the
incorporated Temple with the earthly needs of its members.

Anytime a contract is signed by the Moorish Divine & National Movement, it becomes a covenant, because God
Allah is surely an active party in all that is done in the name of the Moorish Science Temple of America, which
means that the parties are treated as equal people with equal voices and God and His principles are the
guidelines.

4
The MST of A is established under a home rule charter from the civil government and conclusively established
by filing articles of incorporation. The articles of incorporation establish the Temple's purposes and manner of
governance. The contents of articles or certificates of incorporation are commonly specified by a state's
religious corporation statutes.

Statutory requirements as to the form and content of the articles or certificate must be substantially followed,
and the courts have not hesitated to declare an attempted incorporation invalid for failure to do so. Within the
incorporation the state has authority in interpreting the articles of incorporation.

The bylaws of the MST of A are a covenant between the members of the MST of A, and between the MST of A
and its members, while the articles of incorporation constitute a covenant between the MST of A and the state,
between the MST of A and its owners or members, and between the owners or members themselves.

The MST of A was incorporated for the benefit of Moorish Americans, which is for private purposes (a private
religious corporation). The incorporated MST of A is a private religious corporation. The temporal/earthly (Legal
entity) part of the MST of A can be described as a person within the meaning of the due process and equal
protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and similar provisions of
state constitutions and within the meaning of state statutes.

However, the divine/religious (spiritual entity) part of the MST of A can be described as a person under the First
Amendment to the United States Constitution (religious liberty clause) or under the Fifth Amendment to the
United States Constitution”. Through incorporation the Temple has become a part and partial of the Illinois
state and federal government.

The MST of A is organized according to the principles of both the Koran and civil law. So even though the
Temple is organized partially, according to the principles of civil law, the Temple is also in conformity to the
principles of Temple organization laid down in the Holy Koran. The MST of A is partially a legal entity and holds
property through incorporation.

Civil government has no authority over the righteous side of the MST of A, but it does have authority over the

5
incorporation of the MST of A. The MST of A is under the Headship of the Prophet Noble Drew Ali (spiritual
entity) and under the jurisdiction of the state of Illinois (legal entity). The MST of A, is the balance between the
spirit and the flesh because she gets part of her powers from God Allah and part from the civil government.

Part of the Temple, as a legal entity, can sue and be sued as to earthly matters. By contracting with the state
through incorporation, the MST of A gains certain protections without giving up its constitutional rights. While
the corporate side, the legal entity of the Temple must obey the laws of its creation, it also has constitutionally
protected rights which are quite different and more effective, because the MST of A is also a spiritual entity that
is protected by God and the First Amendment.

The MST of A honors its founder, the Prophet Noble Drew Ali for blessing the Temple with God’s liberty,
provisions, and protections, which are implemented by the First Amendment, and we also honor the Prophet
for the incorporation, but without a shadow of a doubt, God is a far more strong and benevolent protector and
provider than the state!

The spiritual side of the MST of A is not a legal entity, a spiritual entity cannot sue or be sued. One can sue a
legal entity such as the corporation side of the Temple, but you can not sue the religious side of the Temple,
which is a spiritual house made up of spiritual beings offering up spiritual sacrifices.

Individuals, including members of the MST of A, can be sued for tortuous actions or tried for criminal acts, but
the spiritual side of the MST of A as a whole cannot be sued or tried for criminal acts committed by a member
or members of that Temple.

The incorporation of the MST of A, making it a religious corporation gives the Temple the ability to hold
property and protects the members of the Temple with limited liability. As members of the MST of A, we are
stockholders of the corporation, which is also an organization to conduct the business of our economic security.

The freedom of the MST of A is internationally recognized as a fundamental human rights norm and most
countries have constitutional provisions protecting religious belief and exercise, other countries provide
religious organizations with protections different in both nature and scope as found in the United States. The
MST of A is international in scope.

6
There has been a move toward providing protection of religious exercise as a basic human right; for example,
see the European Convention on Human Rights, which has been adopted to protect human rights and
fundamental freedoms (Article 9 provides a right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, but makes it
subject to restrictions“in accordance with law”); the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was adopted
by the General Assembly of the United Nations on Dec. 10, 1948 (Article 2 states that “Everyone is entitled to all
the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex,
language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. . . .”); and
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which is a United Nations treaty based on the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, and is binding on the nations that have signed it.

The status of the MST of A is both a religious organization and a state and its just that plain and simple and that
is why the MST of A is protected internationally by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted and
proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly on 10 December 1948. Article 18 and also by the Human
Rights Committee's General comment No. 22 and by The 1981 Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of
Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief, proclaimed by United Nations General Assembly
resolution 36/55 on the 25th of November 1981, Article 6 and by the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights. In 1948 the Amsterdam Assembly of the World Council of Churches suggested that religious
manifestation might be understood as involving "liberty of religious expression," "liberty of religious
association," and "corporate religious freedom".

Furthermore, the World Council of Churches recognized that religious expression "is subject to such limitations,
prescribed by law as are necessary to protect order and welfare, morals and the rights and freedoms of others,"
religious association "is subject to the same limits imposed on all associations by non-discriminatory laws, and
corporate religious freedom "is limited by the provisions of non-discriminatory laws passed in the interest of
public order and well-being." Thus, the limiting or supporting role of the state might be understood differently
with respect to "religious expression," "religious association," and religious corporate activities (which I will call
"Temple business").

Drawn from the Religious Clause of the First Amendment, together with the Free Speech Clause and the implicit
right of Freedom of Association, the right of Church Autonomy is the right of religious societies to be free from
state and federal government control with regard to their internal affairs. Watson v. Jones was the first in a line
of cases articulating the Religious Society Autonomy Principle.

7
In Watson, the Court held that disputes in religious societies should be decided by judicial deference to the
ecclesiastical hierarchy: Whenever the questions of discipline, or of faith, or ecclesiastical rule, custom or law
have been decided by the highest of these religious society judicatories to which the matter has been carried,
the legal tribunals must accept such decisions as final and as binding on them, in their application to the case
before them.

The concept of Religious Society Autonomy has generally been understood as the right of a religious society to
select their ministers, control their doctrine, and determine how the organization is to be governed, without
interference from civil government. The right of Religious Society Autonomy is often upheld against the civil
government seeking to redefine or control religious society teaching and governance.

In addition to the religion clauses contained in the First Amendment, the United States Constitution also
provides other protections that are frequently relied upon by religious organizations, specifically, equal
protection, freedom of speech, and freedom of assembly. In fact, freedom of speech and freedom of assembly
arguments have often been better received by the courts than have arguments based on free exercise of
religion.There are also multiple federal statutory protections, like that of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act
or the Compelling Interest Test, which applies to the federal government and the Religious Land Use and
Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, which applies to both state and federal governments.

It is clear that the MST of A occupies a special place in American society. Although the Temple is similar to other
religious organizations, because of the First Amendment protections, but the MST of A is often less subject to
state and federal governmental regulations or it is otherwise treated differently. However, this does not mean
that those operating the MST of A can ignore the law and do whatever they please.

Many federal and state laws are applicable, in whole or in part, to religious organizations. The MST of A is an
autonomous religious society (private religious corporation), it is a spiritual and legal entity, not a sovereign
entity, so it must be in compliance with state building codes, fire codes, child care laws, and so on. These state
codes are for protecting the health and welfare of its citizens.

The purpose of the building codes are not meant to interfere with the free exercise of the Temple, but before
one can build and occupy a Temple, one must get the requisite permits even though a strict interpretation may
regard this as a limitation on the free exercise of religion. The limitation is constitutionally allowed, because of
the state’s compelling interest to protect its citizens from unsafe building construction.

8
The MST of A is answerable to the Supreme Courts interpretation of the common law and the Temple and its
members are subject to the statutes or proceedings at the federal, state and municipal levels and the MST of A
recognizes the U.S. currency and the Temple and its members are under all legal constraints except those that
hinder the 1st amendment and its clause of the separation of church and state.

The members of the MST of A pay all the forms of legal taxation. The members of the MST of A are recognized
as first class citizens of the United State and by incorporating the Temple, the MST of A has enhanced the rights
of its members by adhering to the aspects of state and federal law.The members of the MST of A recognizes the
legitimacy of the U.S. government.

The MST of A does not recognize the County Sheriff as the most powerful law-enforcement officer in the
country, because his or her authority is not superior to that of federal agents, elected officials or local law-
enforcement officials.The Federal Bureau of Investigation will never classify the MST of A as a domestic terrorist
movement.

The MST of A is not a threat to their communities nor are they a threat to law-enforcement officials and
agencies. The 14th amendment is not needed for the salvation of Moorish-Americans, for it is only through the
Moorish Divine & National Movement that the negro problem is being solved. The benefits of U.S. citizenship
are received by consent in exchange for adherence to federal law.

As first class citizens, the members of the MST of A consequently take steps to affirm and enact their U.S.
citizenship and continue to assert their free national status. This involves connecting one's self with federal
jurisdiction and retain all evidence of consent to U.S. citizenship, such as a Social Security number, driver's
license, car registration, use of ZIP codes, marriage license, voter registration, and birth certificate.

Also included is the acceptance,to pay state and federal income taxes, because all American citizens are
required to pay them. All citizens of the Unites States are income-taxable. The residents of the states are also
American citizens, An American citizen land owner must recognize the superior to whom duty is due on account
thereof and superiors include those who levy property taxes or who hold mortgages or liens against the
property.

9
You will never, ever find a true and faithful member of the MST of A filing false legal documents, such as fake
liens, deeds, and property claims, because so-called Temple Moors are law abiding citizens, not anarchists. The
MST of A has disavowed any affiliation with those who file false documents.

Those who do not adhere to the rule of law are radical and subversive fringe groups. The MST of A does not
believe in the theory that individuals and groups may declare sovereignty and separate from state and federal
government. In fact, various United States courts have held that the sovereignty movement is fictional and that
they are not recognized as sovereign nations, because there is no legal basis to their theory.

1. http://www.fbi.gov/…/sovereign-citizen-sentenced-to-more-th…

2. http://www.justice.gov/usao/waw/press/2013/May/leaming.html

3. http://www.chicagotribune.com/…/chi-sovereign-citizen-tax-p…

Also, when you sufficiently examine the context of the case laws that pertain to the Internal Revenue Code, one
can not ignore the adverse evidence, such as Federalist No. 15, where Alexander Hamilton expressed the view
that the Constitution placed everyone personally under federal authority.

In determining the threshold question of the applicability of religious corporations law, a court will look to the
provisions of the corporation’s certificate of incorporation as well as the actual practices of the organization as
revealed in its papers.

A religious society, by incorporating, does not lose its existence or become wholly merged in the corporation.
The religious corporation and the temple, although one may exist within the pale of the other, are in no respect
correlative. The objects and interests of the one are moral and spiritual; the other deals with things temporal
and material.

Each as a body is entirely independent and free from any direct control or interference by the other. Thus, we
have an incorporated temple, so there are two entities—the one, the temple as such, not owing its
ecclesiastical or spiritual existence to the civil law, and the other, the legal corporation—each separate,
although closely allied. The former is purely voluntary and is not a corporation or a quasi corporation.

10
On the other hand, a corporation which is formed for the acquisition and taking care of the property of the
temple, must be regarded as a legal personality, and is in no sense ecclesiastical in its functions (66 AM. JUR. 2D
Religious Societies § 5 (2007)). When you also sufficiently examine the context of the case laws that pertain to
66 Am. Jur. 2d Religious Societies, one can again not ignore the adverse evidence, such as the principle of the
separation of church and state was articulated by members of the United States Supreme Court!

In 1875, while an Associate Justice, Presbyterian William Strong delivered two lectures at Union Theological
Seminary in New York on the nature of church/state relations. He stated: Again, the law recognizes the right of
every church to determine finally who are, and who are not its members.

Herein is a marked difference between religious societies and other organizations...But a religious society is
allowed to determine for itself, construing its own organic rules, whether a member has been cut off; and no
civil court will inquire whether the motion was regularly made, or issue a mandamus to compel a restoration. It
[the civil courts] accepts the decisions of religious society courts upon questions of membership as not subject
to civil law review.

Also, Chief Justice Roy Moore of the Supreme Court of Alabama wrote an incisive opinion in Yates v. El Bethel
Primitive Baptist Church, explaining the proper jurisdictional separation of church and state. The Alabama high
court had involved itself in a church election dispute, and Justice Moore dissented. He explained that the court
not only should not interfere with church government, but lacked the jurisdictional power to do so: The church
— as an institution — does not have authority over the affairs of civil government, and the state — as an
institution — does not have authority over the affairs of church government...

Acknowledgment of this separation comes from a recognition that God is the source of all power. Because of
this jurisdictional separation, the civil government cannot claim the power to second-guess the decisions of
church government: Common misconception is the belief that the state is merely the less preferred “power” for
determining ecclesiastical and religious matters, or that the power of state may be wielded in the religious
sphere whenever it is thought to be necessary or expedient.

On the contrary, the state is simply without jurisdiction in such matters: “It belongs not to the civil power to
enter into or review the proceedings of a spiritual court. These basic principles concerning the jurisdictional
separation of church and state are foundational to a proper understanding of the First Amendment.

11
Justice Moore’s articulate exposition of this subject was a dissenting opinion, but it was squarely in line with a
considerable body of law that properly recognizes the inability of civil government to interfere with church
government. For the latest decision in this line, we turn to the Texas Supreme Court which has provided us with
a landmark decision based squarely on the principles Justice Moore articulated. In fact, the Landmark Court
Decision Affirms A Religious Society's Right to Discipline & the Separation of Church & State!

To be clear: In applauding the holding of Westbrook, we do not necessarily mean that we agree with every
detail of the way the pastor handled the situation from beginning to finish, nor do we agree with every detail of
the court’s reasoning and arriving at its conclusion. Whether or not everything was handled properly is
irrelevant to the central issue of this case, namely, the independence of church government from the
interference of the civil government in its own affairs. We thank God that the Texas Supreme Court upheld the
biblical doctrine of the separation of church and state.

To be clear: In applauding the holding of Westbrook, we do not necessarily mean that we agree with every
detail of the way the pastor handled the situation from beginning to finish, nor do we agree with every detail of
the court’s reasoning and arriving at its conclusion.

Whether or not everything was handled properly is irrelevant to the central issue of this case, namely, the
independence of church government from the interference of the civil government in its own affairs. Court of
Appeals of Texas, Fort Worth, Peggy Lee PENLEY, Appellant, v. C.L. WESTBROOK, Jr., Appellee. No. 2-02-260-CV.
Decided: May 20, 2004:

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/tx-court-of-appeals/1334028.html

The operational and governance structure of the Moorish Divine & National Movement is that of an
Ecclesiastical Polity. This also denotes the ministerial structure of the Moorish Science Temple of America and
the authority relationships between Temples. Polity relates closely to ecclesiology, the study of doctrine and
theology relating to church organization.

Biblical examples of church governance is in the first chapters of the Acts of the Apostles; the first act recorded
after the ascension is the election of Matthias as one of the Twelve Apostles, replacing Judas Iscariot. Over the
years, a system of episcopal polity (government) developed. Ecclesiastical polity is used in several closely
related senses.

12
Most commonly it refers to the field of church governance in the abstract, but it also can refer to the
governance of a particular religious body. In this sense it is used as a term in civil law. "Polity" is sometimes
used as a shorthand for the church governance structure itself. A Polity is a state or one of its subordinate civil
or ecclesiastical authorities, such as the Moorish Science Temple of America, which is like that of a province,
prefecture, county, municipality, city, or district.

A Polity is generally understood to mean a geographic area with a corresponding government. Body Politic was
also understood to mean the physical person of the sovereign, which is the Prophet Noble Drew Ali and his
successor of MST of A and its monarchy.

This also refers to the electorate in republics, but Body Politic may also refer to the representation of a group,
such as ones drawn along ethnic (Moorish Americans) or the gender lines. Cabinets in liberal democracies are
chosen to represent the body.

The United States of America is organized as a federation of states and the process and the mechanisms of self-
government as exercised by the MST of A is like that of municipalities, counties, or other units of local
government at the level below that of a federal state. Home rule is not, however, comparable with federalism.
Whereas states in a federal system of government like that of the United States of America have a guaranteed
constitutional existence, a devolved home rule system of government is created by ordinary legislation and can
be reformed, or even abolished, by repeal or amendment of that ordinary legislation.

A state legislature can create home rule for a county or parish (or its townships), so that a county commission
or board of supervisors may have jurisdiction over its unincorporated areas, including important issues like
zoning. Without this, the MST of A would simply be an extension of state government.The legislature can also
establish or eliminate municipal corporations, which have home rule within town or city limits through the city
council. The state government could also abolish counties/townships, or their governments, according to the
state constitution and state laws.

In the United States, some states constitutionally or legislatively grant home rule to cities, counties, and
municipalities within their borders. These are called "home rule states." Local governments in home rule states
are free to pass laws and ordinances as they see fit to further their operations, within the bounds of the state
and federal constitutions. In other states, local governments have only the authority expressly granted to them

13
by state legislatures, typically in accordance with the legal principle known as Dillon's Rule.

In the United States, the legislative authority granted to local governments varies by state. In some states,
known as Home Rule States, an amendment to the state constitution grants cities, municipalities, and/or
counties the ability to pass laws to govern themselves as they see fit (so long as they obey the state and federal
constitutions).

In other states, only limited authority has been granted to local governments by passage of statutes in the state
legislature. In these states, a city or county must obtain permission from the state legislature if it wishes to pass
a law or ordinance which is not specifically permitted under existing state legislation. Most non-home rule
states apply the principle known as Dillon's Rule to determine the bounds of a municipal government's legal
authority.

The Grand Major Temple of the MST of A is incorporated in the state of Illinois and Illinois is a Home Rule state,
but it also obeys the legal principle of Dillon's Rule for determining local government authority. A state with
limited Home Rule may grant Home Rule to particular cities and municipalities individually, but has no
constitutional amendment guaranteeing Home Rule.

A state like Illinois, which is both a Home Rule state and a Dillon's Rule state, applies Dillon's Rule to matters or
governmental units not accounted for in the constitutional amendment or statutes which grant Home Rule, so
in Illinois, Dillon's Rule applies to municipalities not individually granted home rule.

The history of law links closely to the development of civilization. Ancient Moorish law, dating as far back as
3000 BC, contained a civil code that was broken into twelve books. It was based on the concept of the Divine
Principles of love, truth, peace, freedom and justice, characterized by tradition, rhetorical speech, social
equality and impartiality.

The jurisprudence of the MST of A is the study and practice of the Divine Principles, because they are the
Moorish concept of balance, order, law and morality. It is the Divine Law of Allah that regulates the stars,
seasons, and the actions of both mortals and forces of nature, who set the order of the universe from chaos at
the moment of creation.

14
The earliest surviving records indicating that the Divine Principles are the norm for nature and society, in this
world and the next, were recorded during the Old Kingdom, the earliest substantial surviving examples being
found in the Pyramid Texts of Unas (ca. 2375 BCE and 2345 BCE). With the role of Divine Law in creation and it
continuously preventing the universe from returning to chaos, is its primary role in Moorish theology, but it also
dealt with the weighing of souls (also called the weighing of the heart in the holy Quran of Mecca) that took
place on the soul plane and the scales of the balance was the measure that determined whether the souls
(considered to reside in the heart) of the departed would reach the paradise of afterlife successfully.

Moorish ancient rulers were often depicted with the emblems representing the Divine Principles to emphasize
their role in upholding the laws of the Creator. The Divine Principles represents the ethical and moral principle
that every Moorish American citizen is expected to follow throughout their daily lives. They were expected to
act with honor and truth in manners that involve family, the community, the nation, the environment, and God!

The Divine Principles were formed to meet the complex needs of the emergent Moorish state that embraces
diverse peoples with conflicting interests. The development of such rules sought to avert chaos and it became
the basis of Moorish law. From an early period the King would describe himself as the "Lord of the Divine
Principles" who decreed with his mouth the Divine Principles he conceived in his heart.

The significance of the Divine Principles developed to the point that they embraced all aspects of existence,
including the basic equilibrium of the universe, the relationship between constituent parts, the cycle of the
seasons, heavenly movements, religious observations and fair dealings, honesty and truthfulness in social
interactions.

Our ancient Moorish forefathers had a deep conviction of an underlying holiness and unity within the universe.
Cosmic harmony was achieved by correct public and ritual life. Any disturbance in cosmic harmony could have
consequences for the individual as well as the state. An impious King could bring about famine or blasphemy
blindness to an individual.

In opposition to the right order expressed in the concept of the Divine Principles is the concept of chaos, lies
and violence. In addition to the importance of the Divine Principles, several other principles within ancient
Moorish law were essential, including an adherence to tradition as opposed to change, the importance of
rhetorical skill, and the significance of achieving impartiality, and social justice. In one Middle Kingdom (2062 to

15
c. 1664 BCE) text the Creator declares "I made every man like his fellow".

The Divine Principles called the rich to help the less fortunate rather than exploit them, echoed in tomb
declarations: "I have given bread to the hungry and clothed the naked" and "I was a husband to the widow and
father to the orphan"! To the Moorish mind, the Divine Law bound all things together in an indestructible unity:
the universe, the natural world, the state, and the individual were all seen as parts of the wider order generated
by Divine Law.

A passage in The Instruction of Ptahhotep presents Divine Law as follows: "The Law is good and its worth is
lasting. It has not been disturbed since the day of its creator, whereas he who transgresses its ordinances is
punished. It lies as a path in front even of him who knows nothing. Wrongdoing has never yet brought its
venture to port. It is true that evil may gain wealth but the strength of truth is that it lasts; a man can say: "It
was the property of my father".

The practice of Moorish law was done through the Divine Principles, for they were and are the spirit in which
justice was applied rather than the detailed legalistic exposition of rules as found in Mosaic law of the 1st
millennium BCE). The Divine Principles represented the normal and basic values that formed the backdrop for
the application of justice that had to be carried out in the spirit of truth and fairness.

From the 5th dynasty (c. 2510-2370 BCE) on wards the Vizier responsible for justice was called the Priest of
Divine Law and in later periods judges wore images of Divine Law. Scribes held prestigious positions in our
ancient society in view of their importance in the transmission of religious, political and commercial
information.

In texts such as the Instruction of Amenemope the scribe is urged to follow the precepts of the Divine Principles
of love, truth, peace, freedom and justice in his private life as well as his work. Scholars and philosophers also
would embody concepts from the wisdom literature.

These spiritual texts dealt with common social or professional situations and how each was best to be resolved
or addressed in the spirit of Maat. It was very practical advice, and highly case-based, so that few specific and
general rules could be derived from them. The law of our ancient forefathers preserved the rights of women
who were allowed to act independently of men and own substantial personal property.

16
Jefferson and the Bill of Rights Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause In English, the exact term is an
offshoot of the phrase, "wall of separation between church and state", as written in Thomas Jefferson's letter to
the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802.

In that letter, referencing the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Jefferson writes: Believing
with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other
for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I
contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their
legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,'
thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Jefferson was describing to the Baptists that the
United States Bill of Rights prevents the establishment of a national church, and in so doing they did not have to
fear government interference in their manner of worship. The Bill of Rights was one of the earliest examples in
the world of complete religious freedom (adopted in 1791, only preceded by the Declaration of the Rights of
Man and of the Citizen in 1789).

The phrase of Jefferson (see above) was quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878, and then in a
series of cases starting in 1947. The phrase "separation of church and state" itself does not appear in the United
States Constitution. The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The Supreme Court did not consider the question of how
this applied to the states until 1947; when they did, in Everson v. Board of Education, the court incorporated the
establishment clause, determining that it applied to the states and that a law enabling reimbursement for
busing to all schools (including parochial schools) was constitutional.

Prior to its incorporation, unsuccessful attempts were made to amend the constitution to explicitly apply the
establishment clause to states in the 1870s and 1890s. The concept was implicit in the flight of Roger Williams
from religious oppression in the Massachusetts Bay Colony to found the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence
Plantations on the principle of state neutrality in matters of faith. Williams was motivated by historical abuse of
governmental power, and believed that government must remove itself from anything that touched upon
human beings’ relationship with God, advocating a "hedge or wall of Separation between the Garden of the
Church and the Wilderness of the world" in order to keep the church pure.

Through his work Rhode Island’s charter was confirmed by King Charles II of England, which explicitly stated
that no one was to be “molested, punished, disquieted, or called in question, for any differences in opinion, in

17
matters of religion”. Williams is credited with helping to shape the church and state debate in England, and
influencing such men as John Milton and particularly John Locke, whose work was studied closely by Thomas
Jefferson, James Madison, and other architects of the U.S. Constitution. Williams theologically derived his views
mainly from Scripture and his motive is seen as religious, but Jefferson's advocation of religious liberty is seen
as political and social.

Another early user of the term was James Madison, the principal drafter of the United States Bill of Rights. In a
1789 debate in the House of Representatives regarding the draft of the First Amendment, the following was
said: August 15, 1789. Mr. [Peter] Sylvester [of New York] had some doubts. … He feared it [the First
Amendment] might be thought to have a tendency to abolish religion altogether. … Mr. [Elbridge] Gerry [of
Massachusetts] said it would read better if it was that "no religious doctrine shall be established by law." … Mr.
[James] Madison [of Virginia] said he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that "Congress should not
establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law." … [T]he State[s] … seemed to entertain an
opinion that under the clause of the Constitution. … it enabled them [Congress] to make laws of such a nature
as might … establish a national religion; to prevent these effects he presumed the amendment was intended.

Mr. Madison thought if the word "National" was inserted before religion, it would satisfy the minds of
honorable gentlemen. … He thought if the word "national" was introduced, it would point the amendment
directly to the object it was intended to prevent. Madison contended "Because if Religion be exempt from the
authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body Several years later he
wrote of "total separation of the church from the state. "Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion
& Govt in the Constitution of the United States", Madison wrote, and he declared, "practical distinction
between Religion and Civil Government is essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution
of the United States".

In a letter to Edward Livingston Madison further expanded, "We are teaching the world the great truth that
Govts. do better without Kings & Nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson that
Religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of Govt".

This attitude is further reflected in the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, originally authored by Jefferson
and championed by Madison, and guaranteeing that no one may be compelled to finance any religion or
denomination. … no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry
whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise
suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument
to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect

18
their civil capacities.

Under the United States Constitution, the treatment of religion by the government is broken into two clauses:
the establishment clause and the free exercise clause. Both are discussed in regard to whether certain state
actions would amount to an impermissible government establishment of religion. The phrase was also
mentioned in an eloquent letter written by President John Tyler on July 10, 1843.

During the 1960 presidential campaign the potential influence of the Catholic Church on John F. Kennedy's
presidency was raised. If elected, it would be the first time that a Catholic would occupy the highest office in
the United States.

John F. Kennedy, in his Address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association on 12 September 1960,
addressed the question directly, saying, I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is
absolute—where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no
Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote—where no church or church school is granted
any public funds or political preference—and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion
differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him. I believe in an America
that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish—where no public official either requests or accepts
instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source
—where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public
acts of its officials—and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an
act against all. […] I do not speak for my church on public matters—and the church does not speak for me.
Whatever issue may come before me as President—on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other
subject—I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells
me to be the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates. And no power or
threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise. But if the time should ever come—and I do not
concede any conflict to be even remotely possible—when my office would require me to either violate my
conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public
servant would do the same.

The United States Supreme Court has referenced the separation of church and state metaphor more than 25
times, though not always fully embracing the principle, saying "the metaphor itself is not a wholly accurate
description of the practical aspects of the relationship that in fact exists between church and state". In
Reynolds, the Court denied the free exercise claims of Mormons in the Utah territory who claimed polygamy
was an aspect of their religious freedom.

19
The Court used the phrase again by Justice Hugo Black in 1947 in Everson. In a minority opinion in Wallace v.
Jaffree, Justice Rehnquist presented the view that the establishment clause was intended to protect local
establishments of religion from federal interference. Rehnquist made numerous citations of cases that rebutted
the idea of a total wall of separation between Church and State. A result of such reasoning was Supreme Court
support for government payments to faith-based community projects. Justice Scalia has criticized the metaphor
as a bulldozer removing religion from American public life.

Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists

http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html

Rebels and Renegades: A Chronology of Social and Political Dissent in the United States

http://books.google.com/books…

God, Government and Roger William's Big Idea

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/…/god-government-and-roger-…/…

James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/…/do…/amendI_religions43.html

The Founding Fathers and the Place of Religion in America

http://books.google.com.ph/books…

Monopolies Perpetuities Corporations Ecclesiastical Endowments

http://www.constitution.org/jm/18191213_monopolies.htm

20
Is Separation of Church and State "Constitutional"

http://www.reachandteach.com/content/article.php… Lynch v. Donnelly 465 U.S. 668

(1984)https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/…/465/668/case.html

Committee for Public Education v. Nyquist 413 U.S. 756 (1973)

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/…/413/756/case.html

The Myth of Separation: America's Historical Experience with Church And State

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1139183

ZORACH v. CLAUSON, 343 U.S. 306 (1952)

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl…

LEMON v. KURTZMAN, 403 U.S. 602 (1971)

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl…

Lee v. Weisman 505 U.S. 577 (1992)

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/…/505/577/case.html

21