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

  
 
 

 

The Libertarian Dime
LIVE WEBCAST
August 28, 2008

If you've heard part one,
you're ready for part two:  here.
Notes for part two start here.

I created this page before the interview, thinking I could post some links to relevant pages during the interview. Got a dozen up, but I tend to get enthralled in the conversation. Now the MP3 has been posted here [mp3], and I'm going through the interview and adding a few more links. If some ideas prompt you to seek links that aren't here, post your interests on my blog: Libertarian Dime Interview and I'll put a link up or even create a new page if it doesn't exist.

Capitalism is a social system based on
the rejection of the initiation of force or violence against others.

  • 27:00 | traditional "anarchist" definition: "disrupter of the system"
    "anarchist" = "a + archist" = "not an archist" - but what is an archist?

  • 29:00 | beating swords into plowshares
    ANZUS PEACE FORCE PLOWSHARES: Early in the morning on January 1, 1991

  • 33:00 | Why run?
    to give voters a choice, the option to vote for someone who would actually keep his oath to "support the Constitution."

  • Why Christians Cannot Hold Public Office

  • Can't get elected as long as voters believe "the State" is our Messiah.

  • 41:00 | Is America a Christian Nation?

    • The Supreme Court looked at America's Founding Charters ("organic laws") like the Declaration of Independence and declared that America is a nation "Under God" (that is, the Christian God).

    • Government can't tell you what to believe, but it does enforce God's social commandments: "Thou shalt not kill," "Thou shalt not steal," etc. Jefferson and the Mormons.

    • 46:30 | Not a particular sect of Christianity, but generic Christianity.

      • John F. Kennedy promised that his church would not influence his governmental decisions.

      • Judges promise the Senate that they will keep their religion separate from court rulings

      • This is nonsense. It's impossible, and it's not required by the Constitution.

    • A Christian government is better than an atheistic/Hindu/Moslem government. No "government" at all is even better.  The Mafia should be committed to and publicly endorse Christianity, but no mafia is better still.

  • 53:00 | LD: the Constitution prohibits religion from having any influence on laws

    • Simply not true. All of our laws were based on Christianity, the True Religion

    • The Ten Commandments

    • The meaning of "The Establishment Clause"

    • The First Amendment prohibits government favoritism of one Christian denomination over another. It does not favor -- much less impose -- atheism over Christianity.

    • It does not prohibit Maryland from being Catholic, or Massachusetts from being Puritan.

    • It Maryland wanted to shift from being a Catholic State to being a Moslem State, the First Amendment did not prohibit this.

    • The 14th Amendment (which should be repealed) did not prohibit this either. Compare "The Blaine Amendment."

    • Can Sharia Law be enacted and enforced under the Constitution? Unfortunately, yes.

      • We assume first that a democratic majority of Americans favor Sharia Law.

      • The Constitution deals only with laws pertaining to the federal government.

        • The 10th Amendment says that limited areas have been put under the authority of the federal government, and only a few areas and actions have been specifically withdrawn from the States (e.g., making anything but gold and silver a legal tender in payment of debts). All the rest of human action and life is under the jurisdiction of states and local governments.

        • The federal government arguably cannot enact Sharia Law because the 7th Amendment says "no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law," and the common law is based on Christianity.

        • If a State chose to adopt Sharia Law, this would be no more offensive to the words of the federal Constitution than Louisiana's still being under French Civil Law, and the federal government would have no authority to change it.

        • Of course, today's federal courts would rule an establishment of Sharia Law "unconstitutional," just as they rule Christian laws "unconstitutional," but with no real authority from the Constitution as its Framers intended it. If "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," certainly courts were never given authority to legislate in this area.

Creation vs. Evolution

  • 54:00 | LD: Can't teach creationism in a government school classroom

    • KC: Completely wrong: federal government has no constitutional authority to tell local schools what to teach;

    • no Founding Father envisioned removing God from schools, even Tom Paine.

  • 56:00 | LD: Creationism cannot be taught in a science class, but can be taught in a class on dopey, archaic out-dated primitive religions.

    • The Federal Government has no authority to answer this question ("what is science?") or impose one answer or the other.

    • Evolution (what happened 4 billion years ago) is not scientific/testable, it's a philosophy or religious assumption

Three Theories on the Origin of the Universe
Which One is More "Scientific?"

A. "We believe the entire universe came into existence 20 billion years ago in a "Big Bang" when the head of Zeus exploded."

B. "We believe the entire universe came into existence 20 billion years ago in a "Big Bang" when the head of Irving, an atheistic scientist who hated religion and never wanted to be the founder of a religion or the object of religious veneration, exploded."

C. "We believe the entire universe came into existence 20 billion years ago in a "Big Bang," but we deny the existence of Zeus and/or Prof. Irving."

This discussion on creation vs. evolution can be clarified with the following considerations:
  • Everyone who Signed the U.S. Constitution believed that the facts of nature bore testimony to a Creator. The correct interpretation of the facts of Nature was a theistic interpretation.
  • Nobody who signed the Constitution believed that an atheistic interpretation of the facts of Nature was the correct interpretation.
  • The prevailing definition of science at the time of the ratification of the Constitution was based on Christian dominion -- that the Creator commanded man to learn about the creation in order better obey the Creator and "love your neighbor" by healing diseases, ameliorating discomfort, and providing for human needs like food and shelter. The more we know about Nature, the more we know about Nature's God, and the more we can glorify Him. This was the concept of "science" that reigned in the 18th century.
  • The shift in philosophy from theistic/creationist to atheistic/evolutionist at the time of Darwin (and even preceding him) was not brought about because new facts were discovered, and no other fair-minded, objective interpretation of those facts was possible except the atheistic/evolutionist one. Rather,
  • The shift in worldview from theistic/creationist to atheistic/evolutionist was brought about because of increasing desire to get out from under Christian morality. Evolutionism was devised as a substitute for Creationism to rationalize rebellion against "The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." This is proven here and here.
  • Creationist scientists can map the human genome and cure diseases without believing in the fiction of a vast evolutionary past.
  • Students in public schools can be taught science without being taught about the fiction of a vast evolutionary past, or they can be taught both the evolutionist religion and the creationist one.
  • Nobody who signed the constitution intended to give the federal government the power to determine science curricula in local schools, much less the power to impose the atheistic model over the Christian one.
  • None of these theories are pure science. They may reason from analogy from scientific facts, they may induce or infer things from scientific facts, or extrapolate from currently observable trends, but strictly speaking, no tests, measurements, or observations can be made on history billions of years ago, simply because we are not there.
  • "Evolution" = extrapolations and speculations about history
    • LD: "science" can only test and measure what exists in the physical world.
    • KC: this is why speculations or beliefs about what was going on billions of years ago are not "scientific" in the strict sense.
    • LD: you can't teach biology and genetics without teaching evolution
    • KC: why can't you teach physical sciences without speculating on the origins of life?
    • KC: Creationists and evolutionists both agree on how DNA replicates. There's no Constitutional requirement to teach that DNA was created by evolution and NOT by God.
  • "Creationism" -- no need to study anything, just "God did it."
    • This is a stereotype of Christians as ignorant, closed-minded boobs.
      • All great Christians before Darwin were creationists.
      • Christians believe God commands us to "exercise dominion over the earth" (Genesis 1:26-28)
      • Genuine science (from a Creationist perspective) creates cures for diseases, more efficient ways to maintain health and human comfort, store more data, grow more food, increase longevity, prevent birth-defects, improve transportation, reduce violence, or generally improve the human environment. "Science" consisting of human effort and government grants to "prove" one of the three theories above is a waste of time from a Creationist perspective, and I would think a libertarian one as well. "Anarcho-Creationist" science is market-oriented, but also has a different philosophy of origins than atheistic market-science.

We'll return to the subject of science and creationism in Part Two. But this is a good place to try to state the issues clearly.

Imagine three scientists. They're engaged in mapping DNA and splicing genes in the hopes of finding a cure for cancer. There is no disputing that their work is "scientific." At lunch, the following conversation occurs:
Scientist A: Do you believe in UFO's?
Scientist B: No, but I believe that Richard Nixon ordered the assassination of JFK, and it was carried out by those who would later commit the Watergate burglaries.
Scientist C: I believe in UFO's!
Is belief in UFO's "scientific?"
Is belief in a JFK conspiracy theory "scientific?"
After all, these things are believed by "scientists."
Scientist A: Do you have any evidence that Nixon was involved in the Kennedy Assassination?
Scientist B: Yes. My brother-in-law works for the CIA, and he allowed me to conduct some scientific tests on film which is more detailed than the Zapruder film, and E. Howard Hunt and Nixon are both clearly visible on the grassy knoll and in the Texas School Book Depository.
Scientist C: I believe "Thor" sent a UFO to Dallas and an extraterrestrial being shot Kennedy.
Should public schools teach children that "Some scientists believe Nixon killed Kennedy?"
Should public schools teach children that "Some scientists believe Kennedy was assassinated by a UFO?"
Scientist A: I believe the world came into existence 15 billion years ago.
Scientist B: I believe the world came into existence 10,000 years ago.
Should public schools teach children that "Some scientists believe the world came into existence 15 billion years ago."
Should public schools teach children that "Some scientists believe the world came into existence 10 thousand years ago."
Why should the views of one group of scientists concerning events that allegedly occurred before any human beings were around be excluded and the other required?

Strictly speaking, I should think that views about the origins of the universe and life on earth should be restricted to a history or religion or philosophy class. Such views are speculations and inferences based on facts, but the speculations are not themselves scientific facts.

There will be disagreements on that claim from those who believe in evolution, but the question of what constitutes science and what should be taught in a public school science class should not be decided by the federal government. That power was never given to the federal government.

It should also be noted that probably every Signer of the Constitution believed it was not improper to teach certain "self-evident truths" in every class, regardless of subject.

Please post your comments about this show on my blog: Libertarian Dime Interview

Links posted during the recording of the second part of the show (or soon thereafter):

KC starts about 4:30 into the file.

  • In Cole v. Richardson, 405 U.S. 676 (1972) at 682, the U.S. Supreme Court favorably quoted a lower court holding that the oath to "support the Constitution" which every politician must take involves "an affirmation of 'organic law,'" which indisputably includes the Declaration of Independence.
  • KC: Constitution would not have been ratified if it so much as hinted that America would no longer be a nation "under God."
    • LD: Constitution would not have been ratified if it abolished slavery
      • KC: Slavery is bad, obeying "The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" is not.
      • Follow the Constitution in its process:
        • Slavery was abolished using the constitutional process of Article V -- by amendment.
        • Usurpation of local authority by the federal judiciary, giving the federal government the power to impose atheism on formerly Christian schools was not a constitutional change.
  • LD: school prayer promotes one religion over another
    • KC: The purpose of this country was to promote the true religion rather than any false religion.
    • The prayer cases were not against the promotion of one theistic religion over another, but the promotion of theism rather than atheism. The federal courts want atheism promoted, that is, a worldview with no God.
  • 11:00 LD: Constitutional Amendments should reflect new, growing awareness of changed values.
    Perhaps in a global world, we shouldn't identify the U.S. as a Christian nation "under God."
    • KC: Global trends demand that we uphold Christianity
  • LD: Christianity leads to crusades
    • KC: No Christians defend the bad crusades, even atheists defend the crusades which were self-defense measures to protect Jerusalem against Moslem invasion.
  • LD: Atheism does not lead to Stalinism
    • KC: It does not prevent it.
      • Christians can say dictatorship is wrong (and have)
      • Atheists have no compelling philosophical basis for saying one product of impersonal random evolution should not terminate the life-functions of another (or 100 million) products of impersonal random evolution.
      • Societies which are "under God" have become libertarian the more they are consistent with Christian principles.
        Societies which repudiate God tend to become totalitarian.
      • The Declaration of Independence grounded liberty and morality in religion: "The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God"
  • LD: During most of history since Christ, governments have been totalitarian.
    • KC: As Christians become more consistent with the teachings of the Bible, they become more libertarian.
      • Christians centuries ago were infected by the un-libertarian thinking of non-Christian empires like Greece and Rome.
      • America is not based on Greco-Roman teachings.
      • Christianity and Liberty
      • The failure of atheistic morality
      • Theistic Muslims are closer to Christianity than atheistic Communists:
      • "Such is my veneration for every religion that reveals the attributes of the Deity, or a future state of rewards and punishments, that I had rather see the opinions of Confucius or Mohammed inculcated upon our youth than see them grow up wholly devoid of a system of religious principles. But the religion I mean to recommend in this place, is that of the New Testament."
        Benjamin Rush, Essays, Literary, Moral and Philosophical
        (Philadelphia: Thomas and William Bradford, 1806), p. 8.
  • 27:50 LD: "Translations" make the Ten Commandments meaningless
    • KC: The Dead Sea Scrolls proved that there have been no significant changes in the text of the Old Testament over centuries.
  • LD: America's Founding Fathers studied other religions, empires.
    • KC: and learned from their mistakes, but rejected their central philosophy. As Clinton Rossiter observed, "The Roman example worked both ways: From the decline of the [Roman] republic Americans could learn the fate of free states that succumb to luxury."
    • The 10 Commandments (Biblical Law) has been the basis/foundation of American law. Legislators and courts have cited the Bible as the foundation of our legal system, but never Rome, Hammurabi, Buddhism, etc.
    • The Founders were well-educated, including a knowledge of Greco-Roman history. (Another example of how Christians are familiar with non-Christian sources, but atheists will not allow the teaching of Christian interpretations)
    • The irony here is that America's political foundations are schizophrenic. There is an acknowledged dependence on God's Law when it comes to social relations (thou shalt not kill, etc.), but when it comes to finding a blueprint for "the government," the Framers could find nothing in the Bible, so they had to resort to Rome to find a "Senate," etc. Again we see that Biblical teachings lead away from "the State," while non-Christian teachings inevitably allow totalitarianism.
  • LD: we don't have to have a hugely powerful federal government to impose atheism on America
    • KC: America's Founders would have been appalled at the federal government telling local schools that they can't teach students that the Declaration of Independence is true.
  • LD: I want public school biology textbooks written by biologists, not ministers
    • KC: creationists don't want schools dictated by ministers, they just don't want the federal government imposing atheism
      • LD: Science admits it can be wrong
        • KC: Evolutionists deny that creationism is a discussable possibility.
        • Every creationist wants all facts taught; evolutionists want certain (creationist) interpretations of those facts excluded by government.
        • A majority of Soviet Scientists supported nonsense, and 200 years ago the vast majority of scientists supported creationism. The fact that a majority of scientists today dislike creationism doesn't make it "scientific."
        • Evolutionism and creationism both are extrapolations and speculations about the past that are untestable and therefore un-scientific.
        • Federal courts do not have the constitutional authority to require Darwinism and prohibit creationism, or to require Lysenkoism and prohibit Darwinism, regardless of what State-approved "scientists" believe.
  • KC: I don't see evolution, I see creation, throughout the world, in all forms of life:
    • Darwin: "But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory."
      The Origin of Species, Mentor edition, 1958, pp. 293-294
    • If evolution were true, all forms of life should be imperceptibly graded from one to the other; instead, we see taxonomic groups: "kinds."
  • KC: evolutionists presuppose the truth of evolution:
    • Before a radiometic dating method can be chosen, the general age of the specimen must be determined in advance. A carbon-based dating method is great for artifacts a few thousand years old, but won't give accurate measurements of billions of years.
  • LD: a core definition of science is that the "self-evident truth" that we are "endowed by our Creator" with unalienable rights might be false.
    • KC: Not a single scientist living in 1776 believed that "science" necessarily excludes belief in God, and in fact belief that "God exists" is a true statement which cannot be false disqualifies one from being a "scientist."
  • LD: an inference from facts concerning a possible event 4 billion years ago is "science;
    an inference from facts concerning an act of God 10,000 years ago is "religion"
    • No scientist before the rise of Darwinism would say that belief in the Biblical account of creation is "unscientific."
    • No scientist before the rise of Darwinism would say that science necessarily leads to atheism, or excludes theism.
  • Court Ruling: A Cut-and-Paste Ruling - Dover/Intelligent Design
  • Chuck Colson's Ten Questions about Origins
    • #4: How does one support the conclusion of the American Society of Biological Teachers that evolution is “unsupervised, impersonal and random?” What scientific (as opposed to philosophical [or religious - kc]) basis is there for this statement?
  • Evolutionists insist that this philosophical/religious belief (evolution is not supervised by God) be taught in public schools as science. But no scientist before the rise of Darwinism believed that this view (evolution is not supervised by God) is scientific -- or even true.
  • Evolution is not a Fact, it is a Faith
  • Evolution leads to Racism
  • Evolution leads to Genocide
  • Secular Humanism is a religion -- a false religion.
  • Christianity and Liberty