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) |
- "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 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 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 2002, 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?
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:
next: The One "True Religion"
Home ||
What You Can Do
|