League of the South Plans April Celebration of Lincoln's Assassination

As I reported recently, the League of the South president Michael Hill announced their plan to celebrate the life of Lincoln assassin John Wilkes Booth. Plans are apparently coming together for an April celebration in Maryland. According to Hunter Wallace:

We’ve been getting a lot of publicity from the media for announcing that we are going to hold a public celebration of Lincoln’s assassination, but it is something that many of us have done privately for years now.
Note: This event will be held in Baltimore on April 11th. It is pretty much our equivalent of Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. Contact me for details.

Maryland is home to the Institute on the Constitution and former League of the South board member Michael Peroutka. In addition, IOTC senior instructor David Whitney is chaplain of the Maryland/Virginia branch of the League. I wonder if Rev. Whitney will offer prayers at the event.
Michael Peroutka once said the Institute on the Constitution led him to involvement in the League of the South.  Perhaps the IOTC could offer a session on the constitutional basis for assassination.
 
 
 

The League of the South Honors John Wilkes Booth

On the League of the South website, League president Michael Hill wrote today:

The League of the South looks to the present and future. However, from time to time we do look back at our past.

This 14th of April will mark the 150th anniversary of John Wilkes Booth’s execution of the tyrant Abraham Lincoln. The League will, in some form or fashion, celebrate this event. We remember Booth’s diary entry: “Our country owed all her troubles to him, and God simply made me the instrument of his punishment.” A century and a half after the fact, The League of the South thanks Mr. Booth for his service to the South and to humanity.

Stay tuned . . .

Michael Hill

Booth considered slavery to be a blessing.

Currently, the senior instructor of the Institute on the Constitution, David Whitney, is the chaplain of the Maryland/Virginia branch of the League of the South. The founder of the IOTC, Michael Peroutka says he is no longer a member but thanked Hill for the League’s support in Peroutka’s November election to the Anne Arundel County (MD) Council.

Institute on the Constitution's Jake MacAulay to Share Stage with Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Ben Carson, Rick Santorum at SC Tea Party Event

This weekend, the theocratic Institute on the Constitution will have a representative on the program at the South Carolina Tea Party Coalition Convention. IOTC’s Jake MacAulay will share the stage with Donald Trump, Sen. Ted Cruz, possible presidential candidate Ben Carson, former Senator Rick Santorum, along with other elected officials.

It is sad that the conference will spill over to Martin Luther King Day on the 19th with IOTC as a part of it. The IOTC teaches that civil rights legislation should never have been passed, and that King, Jr. was not a champion of civil rights. They also host an article on their website which justifies discrimination based on race, nationality, and religion. The founder of IOTC is a former board member of the segregationist League of the South, and senior instructor David Whitney is the chaplain of the Maryland-Virginia state branch of the League.
Originally, a speaker from the white nationalist group Council of Conservative Citizens was scheduled to speak but has been scrubbed from the program. I asked the Coalition if they are aware about the IOTC’s teachings, but have not received a reply as yet.
Conservative executive at the Family Research Council Gen, Jerry Boykin cancelled an event with the IOTC when he learned about their views. However, it appears that the IOTC is making headway among religious right conservatives.
 

National Religious Broadcasters Network Again Broadcasts Controversial Institute on the Constitution Course

In 2012, the National Religious Broadcasters Network aired the Institute on the Constitution’s 12 part course on the Constitution. The NRB took some heat over that choice, including the threat of a boycott from a group of pastors in the Cincinnati Ohio area. The same group of pastors threatened a boycott of publisher Thomas Nelson over David Barton’s The Jefferson Lies.
Near the end of the series, the NRB sent a mixed message about the future of the IOTC on the network. I honestly thought the NRB might not rebroadcast the series based on the controversy and the serious errors in the series. However, the twelve-part series is being broadcast currently on Thursday nights at 9am, Session 10 is slated to run this Thursday.
 
IOTConNRB2015
 
The Cincinnati pastors were unaware that the series was being rebroadcast and, although disappointed, at this late date do not plan any action. Given the errors and theocratic aims of the IOTC, I too am disappointed that NRB’s viewers will be misled. I contacted the NRB representatives a week ago with no reply.
To review the problems with the IOTC’s teachings, see the following posts:
Institute on the Constitution Doubles Down on Exploitation of Martin Luther King, Jr. (1/5/2015)
Institute on the Constitution Rep Argues Against the Constitution on Religious Test Clause (12/12/2014)
Institute on the Constitution Uses Spurious George Washington Quote to Mislead Followers (12/8/2014)
Michael Peroutka: “I Wish I Was in Dixie” is the National Anthem (7/26/2014)
The Institute on the Constitution’s Imaginary Constitution (7/14/2014)
Michael Peroutka: Civil Rights Laws Should Never Have Been Passed (11/7/2013)

Institute on the Constitution: Notes on Session 10 – War Between the States and Women’s Suffrage Dilutes the Franchise (9/13/2013)

Michael Peroutka’s Martin Luther King Remix (9/12/2013)

Institute on the Constitution Uses Fake George Washington Quote on Second Amendment (9/6/2013)

Institute on the Constitution: Post-Civil War Amendments Helped Undo The Bill Of Rights (9/5/2013)

Institute on the Constitution: There Is No Reason Why Men Should Not Discriminate On Grounds of Religion, Race, or Nationality (9/4/2013)

Institute on the Constitution: Confederate Troops Fought For “Government Of The People, By The People, For The People” (8/29/2013)

Institute on the Constitution: R. L. Dabney on Civil Government and Civil Rights (8/29/2013)

 

Response to IOTC – Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Speech: Our God is Marching On

On Monday,  I wrote about the Institute on the Constitution’s distortion of Martin Luther King, Jr.’s work and mission. The IOTC accuses those who cast King, Jr. as a civil rights champion of revising history. I addressed the basic problems in their arguments yesterday. Each day this week, I will post a link to another speech or article from King, Jr. which makes his position clear. Yesterday, I posted segments of his speech titled “Give Us the Ballot.” Today, I am posting a speech delivered in Montgomery, AL on March 25, 1965 titled “Our God is Marching On.”
King marched for racial equality but he did not believe such an outcome would happen with laws requiring equal treatment alone. He also asked the federal government for assistance with housing, jobs and income. King Jr. did not limit his mission to “God-given rights.” Agree or disagree, the IOTC assertion that King, Jr. sought only God-given rights (by their definition) is betrayed by his frequent calls for government intervention in housing, and poverty.
King, Jr. said:

Let us therefore continue our triumphant march (Uh huh) to the realization of the American dream. (Yes, sir) Let us march on segregated housing (Yes, sir) until every ghetto or social and economic depression dissolves, and Negroes and whites live side by side in decent, safe, and sanitary housing. (Yes, sir) Let us march on segregated schools (Let us march, Tell it) until every vestige of segregated and inferior education becomes a thing of the past, and Negroes and whites study side-by-side in the socially-healing context of the classroom.

Let us march on poverty (Let us march) until no American parent has to skip a meal so that their children may eat. (Yes, sir) March on poverty (Let us march) until no starved man walks the streets of our cities and towns (Yes, sir) in search of jobs that do not exist. (Yes, sir) Let us march on poverty (Let us march) until wrinkled stomachs in Mississippi are filled, (That’s right) and the idle industries of Appalachia are realized and revitalized, and broken lives in sweltering ghettos are mended and remolded.

That King was a champion of civil rights is beyond dispute.

Now it is not an accident that one of the great marches of American history should terminate in Montgomery, Alabama. (Yes, sir) Just ten years ago, in this very city, a new philosophy was born of the Negro struggle. Montgomery was the first city in the South in which the entire Negro community united and squarely faced its age-old oppressors. (Yes, sir. Well) Out of this struggle, more than bus [de]segregation was won; a new idea, more powerful than guns or clubs was born. Negroes took it and carried it across the South in epic battles (Yes, sir. Speak) that electrified the nation (Well) and the world.
Yet, strangely, the climactic conflicts always were fought and won on Alabama soil. After Montgomery’s, heroic confrontations loomed up in Mississippi, Arkansas, Georgia, and elsewhere. But not until the colossus of segregation was challenged in Birmingham did the conscience of America begin to bleed. White America was profoundly aroused by Birmingham because it witnessed the whole community of Negroes facing terror and brutality with majestic scorn and heroic courage. And from the wells of this democratic spirit, the nation finally forced Congress (Well) to write legislation (Yes, sir) in the hope that it would eradicate the stain of Birmingham. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave Negroes some part of their rightful dignity, (Speak, sir) but without the vote it was dignity without strength.

Others knew him as a “civil rights agitator:”

My people, my people, listen. (Yes, sir) The battle is in our hands. (Yes, sir) The battle is in our hands in Mississippi and Alabama and all over the United States. (Yes, sir) I know there is a cry today in Alabama, (Uh huh) we see it in numerous editorials: “When will Martin Luther King, SCLC, SNCC, and all of these civil rights agitators and all of the white clergymen and labor leaders and students and others get out of our community and let Alabama return to normalcy?”

Read the entire speech here.

Response to IOTC: Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Speech – Give Us the Ballot

Yesterday, I wrote about the Institute on the Constitution’s distortion of Martin Luther King, Jr.’s work and mission. The IOTC accuses those who cast King, Jr. as a civil rights champion of revising history. I addressed the basic problems in their arguments yesterday. Each remaining day this week, I will post a link to another speech or article from King, Jr. which makes his position clear. Today, I link to the “Give Us the Ballot” Address Delivered May 17, 1957 at the Prayer Pilgrimage for Freedom in Washington, D.C. Clearly, the right to vote is a function of government.

Mr. Chairman, distinguished platform associates, fellow Americans: Three years ago the Supreme Court of this nation rendered in simple, eloquent, and unequivocal language a decision which will long be stenciled on the mental sheets of succeeding generations. For all men of goodwill, this May seventeenth decision came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of human captivity. It came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of disinherited people throughout the world who had dared only to dream of freedom.

Unfortunately, this noble and sublime decision has not gone without opposition. This opposition has often risen to ominous proportions. Many states have risen up in open defiance. The legislative halls of the South ring loud with such words as “interposition” and “nullification.”

But even more, all types of conniving methods are still being used to prevent Negroes from becoming registered voters. The denial of this sacred right is a tragic betrayal of the highest mandates of our democratic tradition. And so our most urgent request to the president of the United States and every member of Congress is to give us the right to vote. (Yes)

Give us the ballot, and we will no longer have to worry the federal government about our basic rights.

Who needs to step up and enforce those rights?

First, there is need for strong, aggressive leadership from the federal government. So far, only the judicial branch of the government has evinced this quality of leadership. If the executive and legislative branches of the government were as concerned about the protection of our citizenship rights as the federal courts have been, then the transition from a segregated to an integrated society would be infinitely smoother. But we so often look to Washington in vain for this concern. In the midst of the tragic breakdown of law and order, the executive branch of the government is all too silent and apathetic. In the midst of the desperate need for civil rights legislation, the legislative branch of the government is all too stagnant and hypocritical.
This dearth of positive leadership from the federal government is not confined to one particular political party. Both political parties have betrayed the cause of justice. (Oh yes) The Democrats have betrayed it by capitulating to the prejudices and undemocratic practices of the southern Dixiecrats. The Republicans have betrayed it by capitulating to the blatant hypocrisy of right wing, reactionary northerners. These men so often have a high blood pressure of words and an anemia of deeds. [laughter]

Read the entire speech here.
If a representative of the IOTC would like to rebut these posts, I will be glad to allow space to do it.

Institute on the Constitution Doubles Down on Exploitation of Martin Luther King, Jr.

MartinLuther King picIn the Fall of 2013, the founder and director of the Institute on the Constitution Michael Peroutka made some outrageous claims regarding Martin Luther King, Jr. First, on the Steve Deace Show, Peroutka said King did not call for civil rights for blacks in his “I Have a Dream” speech. At the time, I demonstrated that the claim was false.  Then, Peroutka produced a video which repeated the same false claims. Then, Peroutka followed up by asserting that civil rights laws should not have been passed and that the government should not define discrimination for private employers.
Despite Peroutka’s false telling of King’s work and his rejection of civil rights statutes, the IOTC claims to truly understand King’s work. Recently, Jake MacAuley rewrote Peroutka’s 2013 article on King and made the same false claims.  MacAuley claims that the riots and unrest surrounding Michael Brown’s death in Ferguson demonstrates the failure of civil rights. He then lifts, word for word, from Peroutka’s 2013 article:

But it was not, as many have falsely claimed, a call for “civil” rights. In fact, in my view Dr. King was not a champion of “civil” rights. He was a champion of God-given rights.

MacAuley added his own spin to the false claims:

Unlike many modern day welfare state proponents, Dr. King’s demands were right because they were based on a righteous pretense (sic).
It appears to me that this concept of “civil rights” was a gross distortion of his work. This bastardized version of truth would actually only serve to compound power into the already corrupted task master, the human heart, or more specifically stated the human occupied civil government institutions.

As I pointed out in 2013, King’s writings contradict Peroutka’s claims.  And now I want to add to the rebuttal by citing again King’s own words every day this week. With help from Grove City College colleague Todd Allen, I have identified several of King’s writings which address King’s views of civil rights and his self-identification as a leader in the civil rights movement.
If MacAuley’s point was that King would have rejected violent protest, he would have been correct. However, MacAuley moves in a different direction. He makes a case for theocracy.

It appears to me that this concept of “civil rights” was a gross distortion of his work. This bastardized version of truth would actually only serve to compound power into the already corrupted task master, the human heart, or more specifically stated the human occupied civil government institutions.
At one time in our history, we looked to God’s Word to determine what was right and wrong. This was a fixed and certain standard.
Having jettisoned this fixed, objective standard, government tramples our God-given rights and now pretends to issue what it calls “civil rights”.
But “civil rights” are make-believe. Real rights come from the Creator.
In Ferguson, Missouri we have witnessed the folly and the futility of make-believe “civil rights”.

While King believed that human nature was tainted by sin, he also looked to non-violent protest to help move the “human occupied civil government” to guarantee by statute equal treatment before the law for all citizens.
As indicated by his statements here, MacAuley and the IOTC want a theocracy where the Bible (as they understand it) is the governing document. While many founders believed the government’s respect for the natural rights of all citizens was consistent with the Bible, they did not enshrine the Bible as the “fixed, objective standard” from which all civil rights are derived. In the real America, the foundational governing document is the Constitution.
What kind of rights could people expect under a biblical government as envisioned by the IOTC? According MacAuley’s employer, Michael Peroutka, civil rights legislation should never have been passed. Peroutka told Steve Deace:

The civil government has no authority to tell any private employer what kind of employees to hire and fire, or what constitutes discrimination. And obviously, I do mean and I would include the so-called civil rights laws are not law, they never should’ve been passed, they’re not law now, they weren’t law then, they aren’t law now because there is no such thing as a civil right.

On the point of discrimination, Peroutka’s website hosts an article consistent with his statements to Deace. On the website, a 1956 essay by Calvinist writer Frederick Nymeyer describes discrimination which is permitted within a society:

The word discriminate has in late years acquired a bad flavor. There are three kinds of discrimination which are under special attack: discrimination on the basis of religion, discrimination on the basis of race, and discrimination on the basis of nationality. We wish to challenge the validity of objections to these discriminations. We see no reason why men should not discriminate on grounds of religion, race, or nationality, if they wish. We wish to present the case for the right of any and all discriminations except discriminations which involve injustice (violation of Second Table of the Law).

The second table of the law involves prohibitions against theft, murder and coveting after one’s neighbor. According to Nymeyer, one may discriminate against a neighbor based on his race, as long as one doesn’t use that freedom to discriminate as a basis for killing, stealing or coveting. 

But the moral crux of the problem of discrimination is the discrimination against unalterable characteristics. Is it moral to discriminate against unalterable characteristics regarding which a man is helpless? Here is where the race problem becomes so sensitive. A man with a white skin cannot do anything about it; a man with a black skin cannot do anything about it. Why discriminate against (choose against) a man for that for which he has no remedy, for an unalterable trait that is unattractive to you and maybe others? Here is where cruel injustice appears immorally to intrude itself into the situation. But is it injustice?

If the writer has made an earnest effort to carry a tune and keep time (which he has) but is unable (which happens to be the fact), is an injustice done h i [him] because he is “discriminated” against by a choral society which discriminates against a trait he had which is unalterable for h i [him]? Of course not. Justice does not consist in denying reality or the facts of life; injustice is not identical with recognizing reality (that I cannot sing).

And so we hold – in the name of happiness, and in the name of liberty, and in the name of the right to discriminate – that there is no more “injustice” in discriminating against an unalterable trait than against an alterable trait; neither is an injustice. For us, every discrimination is valid except a discrimination involving injustice.

Peroutka’s declaration that the government has no right to tell an employer what constitutes discrimination is consistent with this article on his website but flies directly in the face of Martin Luther King Jr.’s work. King fought for the very civil rights laws that Peroutka condemns. 
Channeling Peroutka, MacAuley ends his article by saying:

In both private and public policy, we must remember that God created only one race – the human race. Therefore, all elevation or denigration of individuals or groups based on skin color is immoral and shameful because it violates the Law of Nature and of Nature’s God!

This sounds nice, but I wonder what it means. Peroutka told Steve Deace that the government has no authority to enforce discrimination laws and Peroutka’s website includes a justification for discrimination based on race. I can’t make any sense of these contradictions.
In contrast to IOTC’s claims about King, Jr.are his own words. Consider this segment of the “I Have a Dream” speech:

As we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead. We cannot turn back. There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, “When will you be satisfied?” We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality. We can never be satisfied, as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We cannot be satisfied as long as the Negro’s basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their selfhood and robbed of their dignity by signs stating “For Whites Only”. (my emphasis)

Peroutka’s website justifies discrimination based on race. Peroutka told Steve Deace that the government shouldn’t define discrimination for employers. Clearly, King Jr.’s eloquent teaching about the indignity of discrimination contradicts Peroutka.
In his Letter from a Birmingham Jail, King Jr. mentioned white ministers who believed in God but did nothing to help gain civil rights. King, Jr. wrote:

I have traveled the length and breadth of Alabama, Mississippi and all the other southern states. On sweltering summer days and crisp autumn mornings I have looked at the South’s beautiful churches with their lofty spires pointing heavenward. I have beheld the impressive outlines of her massive religious education buildings. Over and over I have found myself asking: “What kind of people worship here? Who is their God? Where were their voices when the lips of Governor Barnett dripped with words of interposition and nullification? Where were they when Governor Wallace gave a clarion call for defiance and hatred? Where were their voices of support when bruised and weary Negro men and women decided to rise from the dark dungeons of complacency to the bright hills of creative protest?”

Religious voices were mixed with some silent but others opposing equality. In the face of religious confusion, King reminded his readers that civil and legal remedies were required:

My friends, I must say to you that we have not made a single gain in civil rights without determined legal and nonviolent pressure. Lamentably, it is an historical fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily. Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but, as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups tend to be more immoral than individuals.

We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was “well timed” in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word “Wait!” It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This “Wait” has almost always meant “Never.” We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that “justice too long delayed is justice denied.”

We have waited for more than 340 years for our constitutional and God given rights.

Here King, Jr. refers to the rights he sought as being “constitutional” and “God given.” While King, Jr. believed that equality of the races was a natural right, he also believed, in contrast to Peroutka, that civil rights must be gained through government and civil action. Since the privileged Southern segregationists and the oppressed civil rights advocates differed on what God wanted, the government had to guarantee those rights or else they would never come. It is fine in the abstract to say government exists to guarantee God given rights, but the devil is in the details. There are many views of who God is and what He wills. Thus, “determined legal and non-violent pressure” was necessary to make civil rights gains over the objections of those who thought God didn’t approve of racial equality.

As an antidote to the wild IOTC misrepresentation of King, I urge you to read the entire Letter from a Birmingham Jail.

My intention is to feature something from King, Jr. each day this week to address the IOTC distortion of his work.

Minnesota State Rep Cindy Pugh Plugs Institute on the Constitution

Readers in Minnesota’s state House district 33B (Saint Paul), your representative, Cindy Pugh, is plugging the theocratic Institute on the Constitution.

Among other assignments, Pugh sits on the Higher Education and Finance committee. The IOTC course is riddled with errors and so it is disappointing to see it get a high profile endorsement.

No Minister of the Gospel Shall Be Eligible to the Office of Governor, Lieutenant Governor or a Seat in the General Assembly

Does this title represent a sinister new proposal by the godless left to keep Christian ministers from political office?

Hardly. Rather, this is a section from the 1817 Constitution of the State of Mississippi. Apparently, the framers of that Constitution believed that the care of souls could be distracted by the care of the government. After posting Jake MacAulay’s article on the issue of belief in God as a requirement to hold office, I checked out the original Mississippi Constitution. Section 6 contains the words quoted by MacAulay. However, the very next section forbids Christian ministers from seeking public office.

Section 6. No person who denies the being of God, or of a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this State.

Section 7. Ministers of the Gospel being by their profession, dedicated to God, and the care of souls, ought not to be diverted from the great duties of their functions. Therefore, no minister of the Gospel, or priest of any denomination whatever, shall be eligible to the office of Governor, Lieutenant-Governor, or to a seat in either branch of the General Assembly.

Jake MacAulay lauded Mississippi for including belief in God as a requirement for public service. Will he also laud Section 7 which disallowed ministers from public office? Which of these planks is the so-called “American view” of law and government?

The framers of the federal Constitution were wise to specifically prohibit religious tests. The American view is reflected in their work.  The Institute on the Constitution is an organization dedicated to misinforming the public and cannot be trusted.

Institute on the Constitution Rep Argues Against the Constitution on Religious Test Clause

Institute on the Constitution Director of Operations Jake MacAulay today argued against the Constitution on Matt Barber’s Barbwire website.
MacAulay noted that seven states still have requirements that office holders in those states believe in a god.

There are seven states including Maryland with language in their constitutions that prohibits people who do not believe in God from holding public office.

Besides Maryland, the other six states with language in their constitutions that prohibit people who do not believe in God from holding public office are Arkansas, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas.

Such bans were declared unconstitutional by Torcaso v. Watkins in 1961.

Torcaso v. Watkins
No. 373
Argued April 24, 1961
Decided June 19, 1961
367 U.S. 488
APPEAL FOM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND
Syllabus
Appellant was appointed by the Governor of Maryland to the office of Notary Public, but he was denied a commission because he would not declare his belief in God, as required by the Maryland Constitution. Claiming that this requirement violated his rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, he sued in a state court to compel issuance of his commission, but relief was denied. The State Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the state constitutional provision is self-executing, without need for implementing legislation, and requires declaration of a belief in God as a qualification for office. Held: This Maryland test for public office cannot be enforced against appellant, because it unconstitutionally invades his freedom of belief and religion guaranteed by the First Amendment and protected by the Fourteenth Amendment from infringement by the States. Pp. 367 U. S. 489-496.

A South Carolina case addressed that state’s religious test by specifically referring to Article VI of the Constitution:

Silverman v. Campbell, 326 S.C. 208, 486 S.E.2d 1 (1997):  In this case, the South Carolina Supreme Court held Article VI, section 2 (“No person who denies the existence of the Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution) and Article XVII, section 4 (“No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution) of the South Carolina Constitution violated the First Amendment and the Religious Test of the United States Constitution by barring persons who denied the existence of a “Supreme Being” from holding office.  At that time, only two states, North Carolina and South Carolina, required a religious test for public office. Full Case Materials

It is clear the framers did not intend for religion to be a test because the Constitution forbids such tests. From Article VI, paragraph three of the Constitution:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

In light of the Constitution’s clear statement here, consider this absurd statement from MacAulay:

So this constitutional requirement that an office holder must believe in God is a logical and consistent protection against those who might drive our constitutional republic in a bad direction.

This isn’t about discrimination or bigotry.  It’s about ensuring that those holding office in America are committed to the true, lawful, American philosophy of government.

Apparently, the Constitution got it wrong, according to the Institute on the Constitution’s Director of Operations. In his argument in favor of a religious test, he seems oblivious to the fact that the Constitution forbids such a test. In essence, MacAulay argues that the federal Constitution is wrong and does not represent the “true, lawful, American philosophy of government.”

This and other clear problems are why no school child should be confused and misled by the IOTC’s teaching on the Constitution via their inaccurately named American Clubs. That Matt Barber, who works at the Liberty University law school, posted this mess is another reason why no student should attend Liberty University’s School of Law.