|Charters of Church and State||[Contents] || [Feedback] || [V&FT]|
James Kevin Craig 311 S. Main St. Santa Ana, CA 92701 (714) 835-6304 In Propria Persona UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JAMES KEVIN CRAIG, ) ) Case No. CV-94-8090 RSWL Plaintiff, ) ) PLAINTIFF'S PROPAGANDA vs. ) ATTACHMENT E ) Mainstream Churches STATE BAR OF CALIF., ) and their Oath ) Defendant. ) __________________________)Defendant State Bar contends that Plaintiff's views do not rise to the level of protection under the "Free Exercise" clause of the First Amendment because they are "philosophical" and not "religious."
Plaintiff admits that he is not a member of any ecclesiastical organization or denomination. Plaintiff does not regularly attend "Sunday Services." But to conclude on this basis that his views are not "religious" would be wholly superficial.
The distinction between "philosophical" and "religious" beliefs was clearly drawn in U.S. v. Seeger, where an applicant for Conscientious Objector status sought qualification under a statute which required a "religious" belief in a "Supreme Being," although his beliefs were admittedly "philosophical" and non-theistic. The Court granted relief, in effect calling these beliefs "religious." In stark contrast to the plaintiff in Seeger, present Plaintiff not only does not seek protection for similar "philosophical" beliefs, but present Plaintiff has already argued that that decision (and others) was an unjustifiable departure from the definition of "religion" held by the Framers of the Constitution. Using the Seeger standards, there is no evidence whatsoever that present Plaintiff's arguments are "philosophical" and not "religious." Throughout his pleadings, Plaintiff cites references to the Bible, not Socrates or Plato, Kierkegaard or Wittgenstein, John Dewey or John Lennon. Plaintiff is deeply committed to Biblical Law, and the command, "Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and vain deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the fundamental principles of the world, and not according to Christ."
Plaintiff's non-membership in any ecclesiastical institution is easily explained. Plaintiff believes that the institutional church is an imitation of the State. As a defender of Biblical Patriarchy, Plaintiff believes that the Family, as the central unit of God's social order, is also the center of the cultural outworking of the Gospel in the Church of Christ. The Apostolic Age was not characterized by hundreds of atomistic "nuclear families" attending "services" at buildings of State-chartered ecclesiastical corporations exempted from tax under Empire approval. The Early Church was not centered on liturgy but on Hospitality; the architectural paradigm was the house, not the altar/temple. The House-Church/Patriarchy is the hub of Christian Community, and Hospitality is the Patriarchal "Royal Virtue."
Whether the denominations of the institutional church would agree or not, most people who are not members of any ecclesiastical denomination would agree that the institutional churches have not been consistent to the anarchist teachings of Jesus Christ (e.g., Mark 10:42-44). The differences between the lifestyles of the rich religious leaders and the homeless Christ are obvious to all (Matthew 8:19-20).
The largest ecclesiastical institution, the Roman Catholic Church, frankly admits that their institution is not found in the pages of the New Testament, but receives a circular vindication from magisterial "tradition." In this regard, the Catholic Church is paradigmatic of other ecclesiastical denominations, all of which are institutional splinters of the larger structure.
As it pertains to oaths, the "mainstream churches" have followed the secular State into nihilism. Plaintiff refuses to go over the cliff with them. Just as Plaintiff holds to the Theocratic proclamations of the Framers of the Constitution, so Plaintiff holds to the thoroughly anti-Modernist doctrines of the Framer of the Christian Faith. Just as the U.S. Supreme Court has repudiated the stated intentions of the Framers of the Constitution (to which they have sworn their "support"), so the hierarchy of the Modernist mainstream institutional churches have repudiated the stated intentions of the Founder of their professed religion. Professor James Leuba, no Puritan, frankly admits,
Logically taken, Modernist theology would make impossible the traditional worship; nevertheless, these disbelieving Modernists address God in terms fitting a great Being in social relation with them; they supplicate him, praise him, return thanks to him - all according to the ancient formulae. Many of these practicing disbelievers lead their congregations from pulpit or altar in this sham (they prefer the word "symbolic") worship. This situation demands a word of comment.This word of comment runs somewhat as follows: The Modernists assume that the Church is a living, changing organism, and on that ground they think they are justified in translating the language of an "obsolete metaphysic" into terms of modern thought. This is the "original intent" debate in theological garb.
Strong in this assumed right, Modernist clergy stand up before their congregations and, in the language of the creeds, confess, with hands joined and eyes upturned, that they believe in the resurrection of the "flesh," but, as Bishop Westcott explains, they do not mean by "flesh" that material substance which we can see and handle. . . . They say that they believe in Jesus Christ, born of the Virgin Mary by the operation of the Holy Spirit, but they know that the sperm of Joseph operated. They affirm the Fall and the Atonement for Original Sin, but the "Fall" means then Darwinian ascent from brute to man.Though publicly and solemnly subscribed to, America's articles of faith have likewise been discretely repudiated.
They speak thus, and yet they are aware that their sophisticated behavior does "press on certain sensitive consciences"; especially on young men preparing for ordination who, believing like their modernist masters, are nevertheless required to solemnly subscribe to the Articles of Faith.
(2) See Joint Exhibit 8: Appendix C from California Petition, "'Religion' in the Constitution and in Torcaso v. Watkins."
(3) Colossians 2:8 (emphasis added).
(4) Plaintiff's studies (see Joint Exhibit 3) have led him to conclude that the "institutional church" is part of the "Civil Religion" symbiosis which has existed in Western culture since the time of Constantine. See generally L. Verduin, The Anatomy of a Hybrid (1978).
(5) Acts 2:46; 5:42; 20:20; Acts 18:2-4 + Romans 16:3 and 1 Corinthians 16:19; Romans 16:5,10,11; 1 Corinthians 1:11,16; Colossians 4:15; 2 Timothy 4:19; Philemon 2; 2 John 10; etc.
(6) The Westminster Confession of Faith (1647) distinguishes between the "invisible church" (consisting of true Christians) and the institutional "visible church" (consisting of professing Christians, whether true or not). XXV.i,ii,iv,v.
(7) See generally, G. Snyder, Archeologcial Evidence of Church Life Before Constantine (1980), R. Banks, Going to Church in the First Century (1985), R. Banks and J. Banks, The Home Church (1986), G. North, "Family Authority vs. Protestant Sacerdotalism," 4 J. Chr. Reconstruction 87 (No. 2, 1977-78).
(8) Deuteronomy 10:18-19; 14:29; 16:11,14; 1 Kings 8:41-43; Job 31:32; Psalm 68:6,12; 113:7-9 + Revelation 1:6; 5:10; Matthew 25:35; Romans 12:13; 1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:8; 1 Peter 4:9; 3 John 5. "The Royal Virtue" is discussed in R. Rushdoony, 2 Institutes of Biblical Law: Law and Society (1982): "Communion and Community." 132-137, "The Royal Virtue," 246-248, "The Royal Virtue and the Family," 249-251, "The Function of the Royal Virtue," 252-255, "Culture and the Royal Virtue," 256-259, "The Roots of the Royal Virtue," 260-262.
(9) See generally, W. Cathcart, The Papal System (1890).
(10) God or Man, 270-271, quoted in C. Van Til, Psychology of Religion 102-103 (1971).
(11) Id. (emphasis added).
(12) This attachment was never filed in this form.