Missouri's 7th District, U.S. House of Representatives




Congressional Issues 2012
The Myth of "The Separation of Church and State"

Congress should
  • "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
  • oppose any legislation which
    is adverse to the diffusion of the light of Christianity. The first wish of those who enjoy this precious gift, ought to be that it may be imparted to the whole race of mankind. Compare the number of those who have as yet received it with the number still remaining under the dominion of false Religions; and how small is the former! Does the policy of the Bill tend to lessen the disproportion? No; it at once discourages those who are strangers to the light of (revelation) from coming into the Region of it; and countenances, by example the nations who continue in darkness, in shutting out those who might convey it to them. Instead of levelling as far as possible, every obstacle to the victorious progress of truth, the Bill with an ignoble and unchristian timidity would circumscribe it, with a wall of defence, against the encroachments of error.
    James Madison, "Father of the Constitution," Memorial and Remonstrance (1785)

Any government that will not acknowledge itself to be under God is a government that believes it is God. Links from the Kevin Craig platform:

False Religions

Blog Posts

"The Separation of Church and State" is a myth.
The phrase is not found in the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights or any of America's "organic law." It is probably the most dangerous myth in American politics.
"The Separation of Churches and State" is a valid Constitutional principle.
It means atheists should not be forced by the State to pay for "faith-based organizations." It means that the Presbyterians should not be legally favored over the Baptists.
The Modern Myth of "Separation of Church and State" really means "the Separation of God and State."
It is a denial that America is a nation "Under God." Not a single person who signed the Constitution agreed with this modern idea. A government that is not Under God is a government that thinks it  is  God.

"The Separation of Church and State" is obviously not true to the Original Intent of the Founding Fathers. Here is how the U.S. Supreme Court recently stated the "separation" concept in the recent Santa Fe vs. Doe (prayer before football) case:

[Government] sponsorship of a religious message is impermissible because it sends the ancillary message to members of the audience who are nonadherants [sic] “that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherants [sic] that they are insiders, favored members of the political community.” The delivery of such a message–over the school’s public address system, by a speaker representing the student body, under the supervision of school faculty, and pursuant to a school policy that explicitly and implicitly encourages public prayer – is [unconstitutional].
America is based on a "religious message" -- it's our very foundation.
"In God We Trust" is our nation's official motto.

The Court is correct in suggesting that "one nation under God" could make an atheist feel like a "second class citizen," "left out," "not a full member of the political community," and other phrases various Justices have used. But this only proves that the Court is wrong to worry about how atheists feel. Obviously none of America's Founding Fathers were worried about how atheists felt when our Founders declared that God created us and will eventually judge us, and that these were "self-evident" truths. The Founding Fathers clearly endorsed and publicly promoted the true religion, Christianity.

George Washington, in one of the most famous addresses in American history, said:

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 connections 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.

Our nation's second President, John Adams, did not believe in the modern myth of "separation of church and state." Read his official proclamation.

Madison did not believe in the imperatives of the modern myth of "separation of church and state," of keeping God out of government, schools, and "the public square." This can be seen from Madison's statement above, to the Virginia Legislature, and from his actions as President.

The U.S. Supreme Court declared in 1892 that America is "a Christian nation." In 2013, America is more of an apostate nation, having been greatly influenced by the false religion of Secular Humanism, and no longer taking seriously its claim to be Christian. I'm running for Congress to change that.

The Myth of Pluralism

In a Christian nation such as America, people -- including atheists and Muslims -- are free to believe whatever they want.

Their actions, however, must conform to Christian morality. Non-Christian religions have no freedom in a Christian nation to act in ways which violate God's commands. This position was clearly enunciated by the U.S. Supreme Court a century ago. "Religious freedom" has always been limited to the space between one's ears. And it was Thomas Jefferson who made the distinction between beliefs and actions, and it was Jefferson the Supreme Court quoted in declaring that non-Christian religions do not have absolute religious freedom in America because America is "a Christian nation."

Most people never think about these facts. Give it just a little thought:

  • One morning you walk out front to get your newspaper and you see that your pagan next-door neighbor has built an altar on his front lawn and is preparing to rip the beating heart out of his young daughter's chest as a gift to his gods. Will you rescue the child -- and thereby "impose" your religious values on your "devout" neighbor -- or are you a "pluralist?"
  • You're in the voting booth. Candidate A promises to pass laws against murder, theft, and polygamy. Candidate B says he will keep his religion private, and will pass no laws against anyone who feels they need to
    • sacrifice their children to Moloch,
    • steal money from Christians to give to the Kali, the goddess of Chaos, or
    • accumulate multiple wives for "celestial marriage."
  • Who would you vote for? Who would the men who signed the Constitution urge you to vote for? [find out]

Although members of these religions are free to believe anything they want, America's Founding Fathers believed that our nation's laws had to be based on "the Laws of Nature and of Natures God," that is, on the Christian Bible. If America is not to be based on the Christian religion, it will be based on some other religion. Since a majority of Americans are not likely to vote for the Muslim religion, they will -- by default -- vote for the religion of Secular Humanism.

Today the government is the active proponent of the religion of Secular Humanism. Legislation must meet the standards of secularism ("the Lemon test"). Public discourse cannot be theistic, but it can be a-theistic. It's a double-standard, and it's unconstitutional.

Does this mean atheists and Buddhists will be jailed for false beliefs? Not by a Libertarian. Libertarians are committed to opposing the initiation of force. To confiscate the life, liberty or property of someone based only on their beliefs would constitute the initiation of force. (I wouldn't even support a law against polygamy if it meant violently separating a man from his wives and children.)

Atheistic nations, like the "former" Soviet Union and Communist China, are totalitarian dictatorships, complete with pogroms, gulags, and massive violations of human rights. Non-Christian pagan nations are impoverished, and liberty is diminished by the absence of options which exist in more developed nations. "Liberty Under God" means the greatest possible freedom for all, Christian, non-Christian, and atheist alike.

Libertarian views on religion-related subjects in the Kevin Craig platform:

next: The One "True Religion"

Home   ||   What You Can Do