Posted on 05/23/2004 11:54:30 PM PDT by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
Calling the approval of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts "the straw that broke the camel's back," a group of Christian activists is in the beginning stages of an effort to have one state secede from the United States to become its own sovereign nation.
"Our Christian republic has declined into a pagan democracy," says Cory Burnell, president of ChristianExodus.org, a non-profit corporation based in Tyler, Texas. "There are some issues people just can't take anymore, and [same-sex marriage] might finally wake up the complacent Christians."
Burnell is leading the charge for a peaceful secession of one state from the union, and after originally considering Alabama, Mississippi and South Carolina due to their relatively small populations, coastal access, and the Christian nature of the electorate, Burnell says South Carolina has been selected as the target location.
The plan initially calls for at least 12,000 Christians willing to be active in political campaigns to move to the Palmetto State.
"We're not an invading force, we're reinforcements," Burnell tells WorldNetDaily, saying it would be a waste to move to liberal-minded states such as Massachusetts, New York or California where conservative votes would be diluted.
According to the ChristianExodus website, which is slated for a major relaunch next month, "Christians have actively tried to return our entire land to its moral foundation for more than 20 years. We can categorically say that absolutely nothing has been achieved. If you disagree, consider this:
* Abortion continues against the wishes of many states * Children may not pray in our schools * The Bible is not welcome in schools except under strict federal guidelines
* The 10 Commandments remain banned from public display * Sodomy is now legal and celebrated as 'diversity' rather than perversion
* Preaching Christianity will soon be outlawed as 'hate speech' * Gay marriage will be foisted upon us in the very near future
"All these atrocities continue in spite of the fact that we now have the 'right' people in places of power. Indeed, the occupant of the White House is a professing Christian. The U.S. attorney general is believed to be a devout Christian. 'Conservatives' control both Houses of Congress, and Republican presidents appointed seven of the nine Supreme Court justices."
The idea of moving thousands of people to affect the voting in one state is not new. As WorldNetDaily has previously reported, the Free State Project has goals of restoring certain personal liberties and limited government – but without seceding from the union. Last year, a group of 4,500 libertarians decided New Hampshire would be the best state.
S. Carolina state flag
Burnell, a math teacher and cell-phone dealer, stresses he's not looking for bloody battles that took place in the American Revolution and the Civil War, but is rather seeking a "political divorce."
"It's got to be different today," he says. "It has to be peaceful, brokered."
But he admits if the federal government decides to use military force to stop the effort, "Then it can't happen."
Already a dozen people are actively working on the project, and some 1,500 by e-mails of support have been received.
If all goes according to plan, Burnell is hoping to have a constitutional convention by 2014, with a president of the new nation – still to be known as South Carolina – elected in 2016, which is also a presidential election year in the U.S.
He says the nation would be founded on Christian principles, and the people writing its constitution would have to hash out details to safeguard it as a Christian republic.
For now, Burnell prefers to shy away from specifics on the precise laws governing the country.
"Independence first, details later," he says.
Then you might broadly define Christianity by enumerating historic Christian doctrines such as the trinity, the bodily/physical resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, the deity of Jesus, the deity and personality of the Holy Spirit, the existence of heaven and hell, and maybe a few others.
But I would keep that statement of faith very basic and fundamental, leaving room for various denominations to co-exist with any given state/community modeled after their denomination.
You nailed it !!
bump
That's a fair assessment :o)
bump
bump
Have you seen this?
I don't want the government telling me I must be a Christian. I just don't want the government telling me I must hide my Christianity.
No more excessive taxation either. If people want a nanny state they can stay in the United States of Sodom and Gommorah.
I want the responsibility and liberty to be of equal concern. Liberty should not be thought of as "taking liberties" as it is "freely acting responsibly without government interference." But saying "who defines morality" should be against the law. God defines morality.
"The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working under ground to undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric. They are construing our constitution from a co-ordination of a general and special government to a general and supreme one alone." --Thomas Jefferson
Oh yeah, one more thing - If this were Muslims instead of Christians this whole forum would be a blaze of fury.
As far as various biblical interpretations go, all I can say is if there is more than one interpretation of a thing, at least one of them is wrong. Claiming there are two "main" views on a certain topic means absolutely nada.
Bye now.
Go to the Federalist.com or The National Center for Constitutional Studies website (I foget the address. Go to Google). Thoroughly understanding the premises and definitions of terms and phrases is vital. We have the advantage of now knowing the weaknesses of the first American Constitution. The only changes we should make should be to secure the weak points.
NO system can guarantee that any group will stay conservative. My idea is not about "forcing" religion (whatever you may mean by that). Every form of government--and government leader--presupposes a worldview/ a "religion". The question is which worldview/religion will be the basis of a nation. The U.S. started off as general based on a Judeo-Christian worldview--actually a Christian worldview.
Make no Mistake about it. Those who say they don't want to "force" religion always have some religion or world view (usually an atheist/secularist worldview) that they proceed to advance (or "force").
It's not about whether a worldview will be advanced in government, but which worldview will be advanced. There is no neutral ground (although there may be common ground). So, a Christian nation is what I will advance. This Christian nation would still allow for freedom of religious belief. But the basis (constitution, etc.) would be Christianity.
It's about a free people supporting a VERY limited government by exercising their own good judgement and self-control via their religious and moral standards.No more relativism. We will know the difference between right and wrong again. Government will no long UNDERMINE the morality of the people. But they will be a self-governing people.
I agree with this, so I'm not sure I totally understand your objection. Even a VERY limited government in based on some set of beliefs--a worldview. These principles are not developed in a vacuum. A Christian worldview provides the strongest basis for a government that STRENGTHENS the morality and self-governance of a nation.
I don't want the government telling me I must be a Christian.
Nor do I. The Christian nation I propose would definitely not dictate what you will or must believe as a citizen.
Then you obviously are not "retiring" from the discussion.
Well, all I can say is that I notice that NOBODY seems to be able to answer the question I asked, and it's the ONLY remaining interest I have in this discussion: What happens when it fails ? (and you KNOW it will)
Quite the contrary. Your question was answered. You are the one who won't answer the question posed to you: Why was the American Revolution different enough to be justified in a way that secession would not be today???
Oh yeah, one more thing - If this were Muslims instead of Christians this whole forum would be a blaze of fury.
Of course, and for good reason: the Muslims are wrong. I mean, hello, we are not moral relativists here, are we?
As far as various biblical interpretations go, all I can say is if there is more than one interpretation of a thing, at least one of them is wrong. Claiming there are two "main" views on a certain topic means absolutely nada.
Duh. And?
That very sentence is a relativistic sentence. Think about it. It's like saying "you should not say you should not." The proposition is self contradictory.
In other words, make it against the law for someone to define morality, then that very law itself is based upon morality (some moral belief) that you hold. Therefore, in the process of making the law against defining morality, you are defining morality!
It's basically saying "it's immoral to define what is immoral."
That's contradictory. So you wind up with the very relativism you first meant to avoid.
There are many good books on this subject including "RELATIVISM: FEET FIRMLY PLANTED IN MID AIR" by Dr. Frank Beckwith and Greg Koukl. See also, "CHRISTIAN ETHICS" as well as "CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS" both by Dr. Norman Geisler. You might also want to check out "THAT'S JUST YOUR INTERPRETATION" by Paul Copan.
That is correct...and more specifically the God of Christianity defines morality. So we may as well have a Christian nation that basis laws on that very fact.
I guess they do not like the cold weather.
That's your entitled opinion, and you are welcome to it. We don't really want to argue about it since neither of us will budge on our own interpretations of the first amendment.
What is the real problem?
The radical secularists want to strip culture from our government. Their motivations are much broader than simply avoiding religious establishment or preference for one dogma over another. They actually want to replace our culture with a new one, and their tool is the government. They want to turn our society into Hillary's proverbial Village, and enact radical changes in our value structures and moral underpinnings. To complete this task, they understand very well that any vestige of religion, which is an arbiter of culture, must be removed from our civic procedures and ceremonies.
The Village proponents are like the Puritains of old, who wanted to achieve a utopia on earth through American life. They are well aware that a vacuum of culture must be filled, and they are already stowing their dogma into our laws and politically correct codes of behavior.
Shouldn't we sit up and take notice? Shouldn't we do something about it? Yes, but with careful consideration to our actions.
The government should follow culture, not drive it. The Founding Fathers knew that. The radical secularists do not. We of all people should know it. The answer is to explain the situation in terms they can understand, and then ask the people to decide. I am in favor of a constitutional amendment to clarify what the the term "marriage" means to Americans. This is not an establishment of culture (or religion) by the government -- it's a reminder for those who would so quickly forget.
Meanwhile, I suggest you put your religious zeal to work in convincing the churches to teach biblical values. Our cause will be realized much more quickly if the churches remember to teach what's written in the bible. How can you expect spinelss civil servants to adhere to cultural values that the churches are undermining every day?
bump
Read the first amendment. The phrase "separation of Church and state" appears NOWHERE except in the minds of liberals. It is in fact a restriction on Congress, not the citizens.
Meanwhile, I suggest you put your religious zeal to work in convincing the churches to teach biblical values. Our cause will be realized much more quickly if the churches remember to teach what's written in the bible. How can you expect spinelss civil servants to adhere to cultural values that the churches are undermining every day?
I agree. Already on board with it.
But since you're a big fan of "interpretation" you should be well aware of those who call themselves gay Christians that have interpreted the Bible to suit their depraved lifestyles. I don't suspect that they or their liberal fellow travelers will budge on their "interpretations" either.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.