Can a Christian be an American?

This web site does more than describe a case recently decided by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. It is a sweeping revision of American Law and Legal History. It advances a view of Christianity which cannot be categorized as either "Left" or "Right." The focus is on the traditional oath to "support the Constitution," and whatever your position, you will find much to challenge you.
My name is Kevin Craig. I passed the California Bar Exam and am otherwise qualified for admission to practice, but have not yet been admitted to the Bar. It seems that Christians cannot become attorneys. They cannot even become naturalized American citizens. This according to the United States Supreme Court.

I know that sounds crazy. Some readers of this page will believe it for that very reason; this is something they would have expected by now.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that anyone whose ultimate loyalty is to God cannot take the oath to "support the Constitution" -- whether they want to or not. If your ultimate allegiance is to God, you will disobey the Constitution if God requires it. This is unacceptable. Since the oath to "support the Constitution" is required for admission to the Bar, and since my ultimate loyalty is to God, I'm out on my ear.

You're skeptical of my claim. You may have already taken the oath to "support the Constitution," and yet you are a Christian. But at the time you swore the oath, did you publicly declare your allegiance to God over the State? Probably not. I did.

Oh, and I guess I should mention that if your Christianity allows you the freedom to kill your neighbor to advance the New World Order as an officer of the Bush-Clinton regime, then you will be permitted to take the oath, even if you claim to be a Christian.

"Thou shalt fear the LORD thy God, and serve Him,
and shalt swear by His name."
Deuteronomy 6:13
A lawful oath is a part of religious worship. . . .
The Name of God only is that by which men ought to swear. . . .
Westminster Confession of Faith, ch. xxii. (1647)
Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house,
or appointed to any office or place of trust . . .
shall . . . make and subscribe the following declaration, to wit:
"I ________, do profess faith in God the Father,
and in Jesus Christ His only Son,
and in the Holy Ghost, one God, Blessed for evermore;
and I do acknowledge the holy scripture
of the Old and New Testaments to be
given by divine inspiration."
Delaware Constitution, 1776
"It should not be assumed that oaths will be lightly taken;
fastidiously scrupulous regard for them should be encouraged."
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, 1950

"The Oath Case"
TABLE OF CONTENTS

  1. General Introduction

  2. More about this case

  3. A Parable (Showing why it is illegal for a Christian to "support the Constitution.")

  4. The Nature of an Oath (A Sacred Act of Worship}

  5. Does the Bible Forbid Taking an Oath?

  6. An Introduction to Theocracy

  7. Why Christians must be Theocrats

  8. Why Humanists are Secular Theocrats

  9. "So Help Us, god"

  10. No One Takes a Secular Oath Seriously

  11. No One Who Takes a Secular Oath Takes the Constitution Seriously

  12. The Legal System is Dead Meat

  13. Christianity is "Unconstitutional."

  14. Conclusion: An Oath You Can Live With.

  15. An Open Letter to Christian "Patriots" and Militia members.

APPENDICES

  1. The Moral Character of a Christian Attorney
  2. Why be a Lawyer?
  3. Do Christians Blow up Federal Buildings? In Oklahoma or Iraq?
  4. Summers and Girouard: Two cases that apply to YOU!
  5. Oaths in Mainstream Churches
  6. Is the State a Biblical Idea?
  7. Patriarchy and National Security
  8. "Mourn on the 4th of July"
    Why the Declaration of Independence was a Declaration of Independence from God; a repudiation of a God-honoring Theocracy and inauguration of a Secular Humanist dictatorship.
  9. Holy Trinity Church v. U.S. (1892)
    This case shows that the ACLU and the current Supreme Court are so far from the truth that it's dizzying. Contemporary First Amendment jurisprudence suffers from legal Alzheimer's Disease. This decision has been flushed down the Orwellian Memory Hole. It could not be handed down today because the Court is blinded by The Lie. "Precedent" means nothing. "Facts" mean nothing. History means nothing. Truth means nothing.
Delaware Constitution, Art. 22 (adopted Sept. 20, 1776), 1 Del. Code Ann. 117 (Michie, 1975). See also T. Skillman, The Constitutions of All the States According to the Latest Amendments, 181 (1817).  [Back to text]
Concurring in American Communications Association CIO v. Douds, 399 U.S. 382 at 420, 70 S.Ct. 674 at 695 (1950). Emphasis added.  [Back to text]

UPDATE!

I just received email from Ed Gaffney, former Dean of the Law School at Valparaiso Univ., now at Professor at Pepperdine Law School, who handled the appeal to the Ninth Circuit, that that court has ruled against me.

In a message dated 98-04-23 19:06:52 EDT, he writes: 

> Hi, Kevin. I have bad news from the CA9. The panel dismissed the appeal in a 
>  per curiam order that ruled that federal district cts lack subject matter 
>  jurisdiction over appeals from state bar admission cases. I doubt that there 
>  is much use in filing apetition for rehearing, and even less use in going 
>  for cert on this narrow issue.  Can I send you the opinion by FAX?   Call me 
>  Ed
>   ----------
Disappointing, but not surprising. I did think I had a chance: courts in the Ninth Circuit have been extremely liberal in granting modifications of judicial oaths. Indians have been permitted to swear on Peace Pipes, and Secular Humanists -- offended at language requiring the telling of the "truth" -- have been allowed to promise "integrated honesty" instead. But I think the liberal decisions of the courts have simply been an attempt to ridicule oaths in general. Nobody takes these oaths seriously.

Neither of us have at this time read the opinion. When I get a copy, I'll post it with analysis.

I'd like to ask you for your prayers as I contemplate my next move. Assuming that the Ninth Circuit will not permit a rehearing, my decision now is whether I should appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. I have only a snowball's chance in Washington, so to speak. No attorney worth his retainer would appeal this decision because it would be a waste of the High Court's resources. (I'm inclined to appeal Pro Se just to make a couple dozen law clerks read my brief and think about these issues, if only for a few moments.)

Additional Update: July 1, 1998

Former California Supreme Court Justice Cruz Reynoso joined Profs. Gaffney, Laycock, and Chemerinsky on the brief for a Petition for Rehearing, which was denied. An appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court will be filed.

 [Top]