| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
09 Aug 2005 07:20:55 AM |
| Object: |
Let me introduce you to a theocrat |
Orginally posted by me at
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
Recently in a email addressed to our Con Prin web site
From: dha[delete]
To: The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
Subject: Anti-separation website
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 20:58:32 -0700 (PDT)
Hello,
Just to begin, I am a huge fan of your website (I've used the info
provided on the site in many debates with certain Christian
conservatives). The information is exhaustive and well-compiled.
Excellent
work.
As I was searching the Internet the other day about a claim that SCOTUS
ruled that Secular Humanism is a religion in Torcaso (I've already seen
the articles on your website, I was just curious about the conservative
view), I stumbled onto a right-wing website named "Vine & Fig Tree's
Anti-Separation of Church and State page" (located at:
http://members.aol.com/EndTheWall/index.htm
:\One of the sections
allegedly debunks your entire webpage section by section, but many of the
sections are left out
http://members.aol.com/EndTheWall/VFT-UL/ULindex.htm
:|Does the website
plan on making a section to rebuttal websites such as these that try
refuting your separation arguments?
I also had a question about the Secular Humanism issue. This website
http://members.aol.com/Patriarchy/definitions/humanism_religion.htm
claims (end of the page) that "Secular Humanism is a religion 'for free
exercise clause purposes,' and it is not a religion 'for establishment
clause purposes.'" Is there anything on your website to counter this
claim?
(P.S. If my email gets posted, please keep my email address anonymous.
Thank you).
*******************************************************
No the author of the above email is not the theocrat.
He is one of the good guys
Nope the theocrat is (drum role pleasse)
Kevin Craig
This guy has run for congress in two different states:
2004 Missouri's 7th District, U.S. House of Representatives
http://www.kevincraig.us/
2002 California's 41st District, U.S. House of Representatives
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:eO2suloa20AJ:members.aol.com/Craig4Congress\/EndTheWall/true_religion.htm+James+Kevin+Craig,+esq.&hl=en
Your shorter link is: http://makeashorterlink.com/?T2836239B
***************************************
He is also the owner of
"Vine & Fig Tree's
Anti-Separation of Church and State page" (located at:
http://members.aol.com/EndTheWall/index.htm
http://members.aol.com/EndTheWall/aboutauthor.htm
http://members.aol.com/TestOath/cert1.htm
http://members.aol.com/VFTINC/home/index.htm
http://members.aol.com/VFTfiles/Directory/index.htm
http://members.aol.com/EndTheWall/rebutidx.htm
One could spend hours finding and rwsfign his various vine & fig
church state web sites. They are scattered all over the internet.
Most were done in the 90s
Here are some
********************************************************************************
:| Jim,
:|
:| Have you seen this?
:|
:| http://members.aol.com/EndTheWall/TrinityHistory.htm
:|
:| gpg
[ME]
Yes, see what follows:
[from his website]
Vine & Fig Tree
Christianity for the Third Millennium
http://members.aol.com/VFTfiles/Directory/index.htm
-----------------------------------------
Vine & Fig Tree advocates a Churchless Theocracy. A Christian society
without temples and without priests, a world which is a Temple and all
are priests. A deeply religious civilization without religion, a
culture without liturgy where all of life is a sweet-smelling
sacrifice pleasing to God.
About the Author
The author of this website passed the California Bar Exam, but was
denied admission to the practice of law because he believes the legal
system must be publicly and officially committed to God's Law, as
summarized in the Ten Commandments. The Supreme Courts of California
and the United States would not review his case.
The Supreme Court of the United States once declared that America was
a "Christian nation," a nation "under God." Those decisions have been
quietly but completely repudiated.
What does it mean to be "one nation, under God?" It means Theocracy.
That's what the word means: a nation under God, governed by God. "A
nation of laws, not of men"; divine laws, not arbitrary laws. The
genius of the Calvinist Puritans and the Founding Fathers was the
creation of a clergy-free Theocracy; a nation ruled not by the priests
of any particular denomination, but by the "priesthood of all
believers" (1 Peter 2:9). We still live in a theocracy, but the new
god is man. More specifically, the new god is the incarnation of man's
power: the State. Bill Clinton's mentor described the new priesthood
as "The Anglo-American Establishment."
The author of this website believes we need to repudiate the new
theocracy, return to the old Theocracy, and move forward from there.
Join this movement.
****************************************************************************
Vine & Fig Tree's Anti-Separation of Church and State
Home Page
http://members.aol.com/EndTheWall/index.htm
------------------------------------------------------
Vine & Fig Tree defends Theocracy
No, it doesn't mean "government by priests" and Anarcho-Theocracy
http://members.aol.com/patriarchy/definitions/theocracy.htm
--------------------------------------------------------
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
HOLY TRINITY CHURCH v. THE UNITED STATES
143 U.S. 457, 12 S.Ct. 511, 36 L.Ed. 226
February 29, 1892
http://members.aol.com/EndTheWall/TrinityHistory.htm
---------------------------------------------
Vine & Fig Tree's Anti-Separation of Church and State Page
"Separation" Defined and Refuted
http://members.aol.com/EndTheWall/defined.htm
-----------------------------------------------------
Is "Secular Humanism" a "Religion"?
http://members.aol.com/Patriarchy/definitions/humanism_religion.htm
Vine & Fig Tree
http://members.aol.com/VFTINC/home/index.htm
http://members.aol.com/TenC%204%20USA/UShistory/index.htm
Vine & Fig Tree's Anti-Separation of Church and State
Rebuttal Index
http://members.aol.com/EndTheWall/rebutidx.htm
--------------------------------------------------------
Tearing Down The "Wall"
of Separation of Church and State
"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"
-- Ronald Reagan, Berlin, June 12, 1987
Of all the "separation of church and state" web sites we've seen, one
stands out as the least belligerent and most systematic: The
Separation of Church and State Home Page. Our purpose on this page is
to link together the pages on that site with pages on ours which
answer their claims.
The positive case for America as a Theocratic ("under God") "Christian
nation" is found here. If you haven't already checked out that series
of links, please do so now. That page makes it almost impossible to
believe in the modern "separation of church and state" myth
This page is more negative; a rebuttal of a pro-separation site. On
the left are links to the pages of the The Separation of Church and
State Home Page. On the right are links to our answers. If there is no
link we're working on it, but would appreciate your help.
----------------------------------------------------------
http://members.aol.com/EndTheWall/VFT-UL/ULindex.htm
[Excerpt}
Of all the "separation of church and state" web sites we've seen, one
stands out as the least belligerent and most systematic: The
Separation of Church and State Home Page.
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/tnpidx.htm
Our purpose on this page is to link together the pages on that site
with pages on ours which answer their claims.
The positive case for America as a Theocratic ("under God") "Christian
nation" is found here. If you haven't already checked out that series
of links, please do so now. That page makes it almost impossible to
believe in the modern "separation of church and state" myth
This page is more negative; a rebuttal of a pro-separation site. On
the left are links to the pages of the The Separation of Church and
State Home Page.
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/tnpidx.htm
On the right are links to our answers. If there is no link we're
working on it, but would appreciate your help.
===================================================
[ME]
The above was talking about Tom Peters web site that Susan and I was
part of and which is now added as a separate part of our web site
The person who owns that site deosn't really do much rebutting of
Tom's old page
***********************************************************************
[his website]
http://members.aol.com/EndTheWall/calvinism.htm
[EXCERPT]
However, I digress...you have made your argument, it must stand or
fall on its own merits.
Are you familar with Robert Nordlander? He writes an interesting
series of articles which address the idea of Calvinism influencing
our founders. Here is the link, for your convenience.
A Critical Response to Bernard Katz On Our Founding Fathers
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/nordland.htm
The words of Madison and Jefferson with reference to the nature of
and benefit of religion in the United States are well worth the read.
I've seen much better articles. The facts are thin and the logic is
fallacious through and through. Just because someone rejects
predestination does not mean they believe in a purely atheistic
government. Adams violated the ACLU myth of "separation" at every
turn. This article contains some very bad reasoning.
In fact, I'd be embarrassed to rely on this article if I were a
separationist. I've never seen an article more clearly commit this
basic fallacy, and it makes obvious the point that anti-Calvinists and
Unitarians can be -- and were -- very conservative and can use the
government to endorse and promote their brand of theism.
I've written
A Critical Response to "A Critical Response to Bernard Katz On Our
Founding Fathers"
http://members.aol.com/VFTfiles/nordland.htm
I invite your comments.
Kevin C.
http://members.aol.com/EndTheWall/
********************************************************************************\
[his website]
A Critical Response to "A Critical Response to Bernard Katz On Our
Founding Fathers"
http://members.aol.com/VFTfiles/nordland.htm
[EXCERPT]
In this box is the article from the "separation of church and state"
website.
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/nordland.htm
In this box is our reply
On Our Founding Fathers
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/
A Critical Response to Bernard Katz On Our Founding Fathers
Although written in 1985, in light of the power and significance of
the Falwell/Robertson forces within the Republican Party, this essay
should be useful for those today who encounter the claim that America
is a "Christian nation." RN
********************************************************************************\
[ME]
I ASKED HIM TO DISCUSS THE ABOVE ARTICLE IN A PUBLIC FORUM. I NEVER
HEARD FROM HIM
HERE WAS MY INVITATION:
http://www.talkabouteducation.com/group/misc.education/messages/225938.html
An Invitation to discussion
by buckeye-ELO@[EMAIL PROTECTED] Feb 17, 2004 at 11:42 AM
A copy of a email I sent today
********************************************************************************\
BTW is my Usenet posting screen name. It's
still me (grin)
*********************************************************************
[MORE FROM HIS WEB SITE]
http://members.aol.com/TestOath/index.htm
CHRISTIANS FOR THE "TEST OATH"
INTRODUCTION
Fighting the Battle where it Needs to be Fought
Christians want to influence politics. They want to see Christian
values replace selfish man-centered values which result in abortion,
homosexuality, illiteracy, and crime. They hope to elect Christian
statesmen, pass Godly laws, or win well-researched lawsuits which will
lead our nation to Godliness, peace, and prosperity.
***************************************************************************
This was his brief that he presented to the U S Supreme Court which
the court refused to take his case
http://members.aol.com/TestOath/cert1.htm
[EXCERPT]
No. ___________
-----------------------
In the
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
October Term, 1994
_______________
James Kevin Craig,
Petitioner,
v.
California State Bar
Respondent
_______________
On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the
Supreme Court of the State of California
_______________
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
_______________
JAMES KEVIN CRAIG
12314 Palm Dr. #107
Desert Hot Springs, CA
92240
(619) 329-9045
Pro Se
-----------------------
Questions Presented
1) Does the "no religious test" phrase of Article VI, paragraph 3 of
the United States Constitution, and the ruling in Torcaso v. Watkins,
367 U.S. 488, 81 S.Ct. 1680, 6 L.Ed.2d 982 (1961), which prohibited
the states from requiring oaths of office the terms of which conform
to the tenets of the religion of Christianity, also forbid the states
from permitting an applicant to the Bar to swear voluntarily an oath
the terms of which conform to the religion of Christianity?
2) Does this Court's ruling in In re Summers 325 U.S. 561; 65 S.Ct.
1307 (1945) (holding that a Christian pacifist who disagreed with that
part of the constitution requiring military training could not take
the "support oath" in good faith) forbid a prospective attorney at
law, who declares the authority of God and of the Christian Scriptures
to be superior to that of the State, from being admitted to the Bar
for inability to take in good faith a required oath to "support the
Constitution", contrary to the First Amendment?
3) In view of modern policy considerations of "Global
Interdependence," does this Court's ruling in In re Griffiths, 413
U.S. 717, 93 S.Ct. 2851, 37 L.Ed.2d 910 (1973), holding that U.S.
citizenship cannot be required for admission to the Bar, absolve an
applicant to the Bar from taking an oath to "support the
Constitution," which this Court has "substantially equated to that
allegiance which, by the common law, every citizen was understood to
owe to his sovereign." Knight v. Board of Regents, 269 F.Supp 339
(1967), aff'd per curiam, 390 U.S. 36, 88 S.Ct. 816, 19 L.Ed.2d 812
(1968).
[top]
[contents]
TABLE OF CONTENTS
*************************************************************
Christians for a "Test Oath"
TABLE OF CONTENTS
http://members.aol.com/TestOath/contents.htm
********************************************************************************\
He tried to defame our website
http://members.aol.com/EndTheWall/VFT-UL/ULindex.htm
but gave up after awhile
********************************************************************************\
http://members.aol.com/Craig4Congress/issues/religion/nature.htm
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]
For people in Hampton Roads you are also invited to join
NORFOLK/VA. B. SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE MEETUP GROUP
http://churchandstate.meetup.com/47/
Virginia Chapter Americans United for Separation of Church and State
http://au-va.org/
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.
This site is a member of the following web rings:
Freethought Ring--&--Freethought, Religion & Beliefs Ring
The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring
American History WebRing--&--The History Ring
Let Freedom Ring--&--Religious Freedom Ring
Law Issues Ring--&--Legal Research Ring
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
