Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Why Atheists Should Elect a Christian Theocrat

Kevin Craig is the Libertarian Party nominee for the U.S. House of Representatives in Missouri's 7th District, running against the Minority Whip, Roy Blunt. His campaign motto is "Liberty Under God."

www.LibertyUnderGod.com

Kevin Craig opposes the modern myth of "separation of church and state." The phrase no longer refers to "churches," or as "the Father of the Constitution" James Madison often called them, "ecclesiastical bodies." The real meaning of the modern phrase is actually "the separation of God and State." Kevin Craig believes that any government which will not acknowledge itself to be under God is a government that believes it is God.

Some atheists in Southwest Missouri
are urging voters NOT to vote for the Libertarian Party nominee, Kevin Craig, solely because Craig believes America should be a Christian nation.

A Virtual "Round Table"

Do you hate God more than you love liberty?

You're invited to discuss this issue in a live "round table discussion" over the internet. Details are here:

atheists.KevinCraig.us

This is intended to be a level-headed, rational, educational discussion. No yelling, no rude interruptions. Click here for links to good examples of Craig's previous discussions with atheists on the subjects of law, religion, and creation-evolution which were courteous and well-mannered.

You can listen to this "round table discussion" anonymously on your computer, type a question or comment and submit it, or call in to voice your opinion on the phone.

The next discussions are scheduled for:

  • Thursday October 30 a "virtual lunch" at noon
  • Sunday November 2 your alternative to church.
  • If the Sunday morning call fills our phone board, we'll schedule another "round table" for Sunday Evening.
-----=====******O******=====-----

A group calling itself "Americans United for Separation of Church and State" claims that James Dobson of Focus on the Family "SEEKS A FUNDAMENTALIST THEOCRACY."

Doesn't that sound frightening?

In fact, all that Dr. Dobson, Jerry Falwell, and others like them want is what America's Founding Fathers wanted: children in public schools should be taught that the Declaration of Independence is really true, and what it teaches is really true:

• God exists.
• Our rights are the product of Intelligent Design.
• We ought to obey "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God."
• Our intentions and motives will be judged by "the Supreme Judge of the world."
• We should have the faith to trust in Divine Providence.

If the teaching of these ideas creates a "fundamentalist theocracy," then America is clearly a "fundamentalist theocracy," because the foundational charters of this nation endorse and promote those ideas.

Kevin Craig believes that America's Founding Fathers opposed "ecclesiocracy" (government by priests and clergy) but not "Theocracy" (government by God). The Signers of the Declaration of Independence and the Framers of the Constitution would have unanimously opposed the modern version of "the Separation of Church and State" as promoted by the ACLU and "Americans United for Separation of Church and State."

Kevin Craig studied law and passed the California Bar Exam, but was denied a license to practice by the same court which held that students in public schools should not be permitted to say the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. Details here.

7 comments:

Brian Westley said...

Given your inaccurate (or deliberately deceptive) offhand summary of the Newdow case, why should anyone vote for you?

Kevin Craig said...

If you're an atheist, the #1 reason you should vote for me is because I am an effective advocate of liberty, and an effective opponent of the initiation of force. I oppose using the power of the State to redistribute wealth or impose ideas on people.

The second reason would be because I'm open-minded, and if you are willing to show me the evidence that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals actually permitted children to say the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, I will certainly recant. As I recall, the presence of one atheist in the classroom meant that 29 theists couldn't say those dreaded words, "under God."

While you're at it, please give me some reason to believe that the Constitution would have been ratified if it had been known that the federal government would have the power to impose such anti-religious edicts on local schools.

I doubt that it would have been ratified.

In fact, as I recall, several states refused to ratify until the First Amendment prevented that very thing.

Kevin Craig said...

I'm reminded of a couple of statements by George Washington, "the Father of his Country."

As leader of the Continental army, General Washington said:

While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian. The signal instances of providential goodness which we have experienced, and which have now almost crowned our labors with complete success, demand from us in a peculiar manner the warmest returns of gratitude and piety to the Supreme Author of all good.—

In his Farewell Address (one of the most important addresses in this nation's history), President Washington reminded the nation:

Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion, and Morality are indispensable supports.—In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. —The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them.—A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity.—Let it simply be asked where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion.—Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure—reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.—

The idea that Washington would have approved of the federal government "subverting" the words "under God" in local schools is preposterous.

Why should anyone vote for someone like Washington, Jefferson, John Hancock, or Samuel Adams, when they all denied the idea that the State is separate from -- rather than under -- the higher power of the Supreme Judge of the World?

I think America's Founders would agree that a vote for Kevin Craig is the surest way to protect our "political prosperity."

Brian Westley said...

Here's the conclusion of the Newdow lawsuit from the 9th circuit:

In conclusion, we hold that (1) the 1954 Act adding the words "under God" to the Pledge, and (2) EGUSD's policy and practice of teacher-led recitation of the Pledge, with the added words included, violate the Establishment Clause.

That's it. Congress adding the words violated the 1st amendment, and the school's policy of teacher-led recitation of the pledge with the added words violated the constitution. Absolutely nothing in there about what students can or cannot say, because they aren't state actors like the teachers.

The opinion is at Newdow's website here.

Kevin Craig said...

Not a single person who had a hand in ratifying the First Amendment believed that the federal judiciary was given power by the Constitution to order local schools not to allow children to say the words "under God."

Not one.

If parents want their children to say the words "under God" in a Pledge of Allegiance, and the teacher or local school board thinks this is a good part of an American education, the federal government has no power to prohibit this.

The Supreme Court ruled back in 1943 that no student has to say a single word of the Pledge of Allegiance if they have objections to the religious content of the Pledge. But the Court didn't remove the entire Pledge just because one student objected to it. Nobody's rights are violated by allowing 29 out of 30 students in a class to say the words "under God."

This is clearly an attempt by atheists to use the federal courts to impose atheism on local schools.

The ultimate and only satisfactory answer, of course, is the complete separation of school and state.

Brian Westley said...

Not a single person who had a hand in ratifying the First Amendment believed that the federal judiciary was given power by the Constitution to order local schools not to allow children to say the words "under God."

Not one.


And no one believes that today, either.

When will you stop lying about the Newdow case?

It had NOTHING to do with 'not allowing children to say the words "under God."'

It was about the government promoting theism by adding the words 'under god' to the pledge and having it recited in school.

But you're a politician, I should EXPECT lying from you.

Kevin Craig said...

Brian, I may be mistaken (maybe, but I'm not), but you have no evidence that I am lying.

As I wrote elsewhere, the Supreme Court ruled decades ago that no student can be required to say a single word of the Pledge of Allegiance. The issue today is not about any student being required to say the words "Under God", it's about students being permitted to say those dreaded words.

Newdow went to a FEDERAL court and asked the federal judges to compel state and local governments to prohibit teachers from allowing a class full of students from saying the words "under God."

America was settled in an attempt to Promote Christianity. Every single person who signed the Constitution believed that governments were formed in obedience to God's command for the purpose of promoting Christianity.

Newdow disagrees with that fact. Atheistic judges agree with Newdow more often than they agree with America's Founding Fathers.