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.
It was a joke. Not an obvious one I admit, but that was my intention. Obviously it wouldn't REALLY be illegal. LOL! Just frowned upon.
Except that would be giving in to the culture enforcers who started this problem in the first place. You can't legislate culture, and our Founding Fathers knew that. King Henry the 8th was party to the destruction of over 100 Catholic cathedrals and abbeys in England because he thought that legislating religion was a good way to get a divorce. Our founding fathers knew all about that folly and did very well to avoid it.
The problem we have now is that people want to do exactly that in the opposite direction. They want to legislate their morality by saying that it's immoral to prevent same sex couples from marrying. They widen the definition of human rights to include marriage for anyone. (Well, most of them stop at two people -- they're uncomfortable with allowing eight people to marry for some reason, I'm not sure why -- could it be culture?)
We now have to pass a law that says our government will reflect our culture and will only honor men and women to marry one two person couple at a time. We will not pay federal benefits to anyone but traditional couples. And we will certainly not allow same sex couples to encourage immigration.
It might work if we leave religion out of it. The culture destroyers want to separate culture from state. But they're really guilty of trying to impart their culture into the state -- by force.
We don't have to come down to their level to stop them in their tracks.
With the level of dissent amongst those of Christian faith on this forum (on just about any issue) is any indicator, this new "nation" would be the worst thing for both democracy and christianity.
The last time we had christian theocracy in this world, the entire system collapsed under its own "holier-than-thou" corruption. Of course that was pre-reformation, we are so much more enlightened now.
Do christian americans really think they can form a tolerant theocracy? It can never happen. No amount of faith and bible reading can keep a hypothetical entity like this from becoming an abomination. Those that would join such an enterprise really haven't thought it through and are willing to sacrifice christianity in order to save it.
You already have the best place in the world to be a christian in the United States. Nobody promised it would be perfect or wouldn't be a struggle to maintain religious freedom in the US, especially in a cultural environment we find ourselves in today.....fight for it if you really want it.
Shame on everyone who professes a willingness to join such an immoral fools errand in the name of God.
Quite the contrary, you can't avoid legislating culture (Can you think of any formidable culture that has no legislation?). Our founding fathers knew that. So they themselves legislated in the best way possible.
King Henry the 8th was party to the destruction of over 100 Catholic cathedrals and abbeys in England because he thought that legislating religion was a good way to get a divorce.
That's called the genetic fallacy in logic. If King Henry the 8th were to advocate private property to only aristocratic citizens it would not follow that private property were wrong. It would only follow that Henry the 8th did not equally apply private property rights.
It might work if we leave religion out of it.
To the contrary. Withdraw God from the equation and you undermine the very basis for any meaningful definition for marriage.
Building a christian nation far closer to what our country was than the it is today is hardly a theocracy. And secularization is hardly less abominable than you say a christian nation would be.
That's an erroneoneously presumptuous opinion. As if there is no dissent in our secularized nation. As if a secular (i.e., de facto atheist nation) is any better for "democracy".
That cultures have legislation does not imply that they should be formed by their legislation. Anyway, my point is that in a democratic republic, legislation should reflect the will of the people. Most Americans don't want marriage to be redefined. What had always been a definition of consensus is now being shattered by a small group of people trying to force their changes to our culture through legislation. A constitutional amendment defining marriage in traditional terms would reflect the culture as it stands; it wouldn't be navigating it into uncharted territory.
Withdraw God from the equation and you undermine the very basis for any meaningful definition for marriage.
I didn't say anything about withdrawing God, and neither did our Founding Fathers. They did say that religious doctrines couldn't be legislated by Congress, however. And for good reason, as previous attempts to establish religious dogma by governments had all failed miserably in violence and opression.
I'm arguing that the language of the traditional marriage legislation should be simple and matter of fact. You can call it "secular" if you like, but that won't diminish its force one bit. It should say something very similar to this:
The American people define marriage as the union of a man and woman as husband and wife.The more complicated we make it, the more objections people will find in it.
People who don't want to be here should just get out. Fat chance. They'd rather whine while staying.
"Building a christian nation far closer to what our country was than the it is today is hardly a theocracy. And secularization is hardly less abominable than you say a christian nation would be."
No, but a secular nation with freedom of religion, which we are today accepts and expects that a free people have differing interests that they can and do pursue. A christian nation would have policies on, say, the teaching of evolution, that would not allow differing interests.
There are so many other examples - just look at the number of different christian faiths.......which one would be the basis of this christian state?
If it would still be a secular state based on christian values, why seek a separate state?
No, it would very quickly become an abomination despite legitimate and true intentions of some of the folks who would form such a hypothetical nation.
"That's an erroneoneously presumptuous opinion. As if there is no dissent in our secularized nation. As if a secular (i.e., de facto atheist nation) is any better for "democracy"."
Of course there is dissent.....that is what secular nations are built upon! The institutions are there partially to arbitrate dissent in a fair manner - to allow individuals certain rights to live as they will. The secular institutions are there to prevent tyranny of the majority - which is something that a christian nation would enshrine!
We forget that tyranny of the majority is what caused our religious forefathers to move to the New World in the first place!
I wonder if this new christian nation would be tolerant of Mormon citizens exercising their religion?
No, a secular nation is the only one that can allow the expression of seperate faiths. There are too many examples to count in the world today that prove that point.
lobby for change in this nation!
Are you kidding?!? Secular humanism has led to rampant tyranny over Christians. The A.C.L.U. is crushing religious liberty. Secularism is no less a worldview/religion than Christianity. The secularists are at least as dogmatic and aegenda driven as any any Christian statist I know of.
We forget that tyranny of the majority is what caused our religious forefathers to move to the New World in the first place!
Christianity is not the cause of tyranny. At worse, it is the very distortion of Christian principles that has led to problems. Make no mistake about it. Atheism has been the underlying assumption of most of the genocidal tyrants of the world (Stalin, etc.).
I wonder if this new christian nation would be tolerant of Mormon citizens exercising their religion?
If you are refering to the Christian Nation I propose, then the answer is yes. Anyone should be allowed to believe whatever they want, and practice their faith (except for folks who want to harm others in the process). Christian principles provide the best safeguard for this, as opposed to, say, the secularists who are hell bent on crushing religious liberty and persecuting Christians.
Our founding fathers promoted Christianity (yes, specifically) while also promoting religious liberty. This is what we need to return to, and this is what we would do in a Christian nation.
A Secular nation is the only one that can allow the expression of seperate faiths.
Wrong. The former Soviet Union, communist China, etc., were "secular nations". Those "secular" nations hardly allowed for "expression of faiths". The secularization of societies, the removal of God, undermines the very basis for human rights as human rights are impossible to even define cogently without God.
There are too many examples to count in the world today that prove that point.
You mean like the millions upon millions persecuted and murdered by the likes of those secularists Stalin, Mao, etc., etc.? Christians look to form 'new nation' within U.S.
A christian nation would have policies on, say, the teaching of evolution, that would not allow differing interests.
To the contrary, the secular nation now has policies on the origins of the universe, evolution, etc., that do not allow "differing interests." The Secularists are the problem, not the solution. Many reasonable laws (regarding equal time school for different views on the origins of the universe) have been struck down by these secularists who are supposed to be more fair.
It's absurd to think that secularism in America today protects religious liberty. The secularists have an absolute monopoly on our public classrooms, and just about every other area of our public life ("take God out of the Pledge of allegiance"). This increasingly secularized nation seeks to censor out all opposing viewpoints.
But the A.C.L.U. would applaud your impression of the situation.
There are so many other examples - just look at the number of different christian faiths.......which one would be the basis of this christian state?
There is one Christian faith. There are many Christian denominations. Differences within a worldview are hardly unique to Christianity. Every world view (inlcuding secularism) has differences in the particulars. That hardly means you can't reach a consensus on general truths to be put in the constitution.
The founding fathers did it. The Christian Nation would be far closer to the form of Government are founding fathers developed than the secularized America we have today.
In short, The constitution of a Christian Nation as I imagine it would be very close to the U.S. constitution but more specific in terms of protecting the unborn, defining marriage as between a man and a woman, more explicit protections of religious liberty (while encouraging religion), civil rights which cannot be interpreted to lead to quotas and preferences, etc.
More specific to your questions, I will probably write up a proposed set of amendments for a Christian Constitution. You will see some differences to be sure, but a lot will be very similar to the U.S. constitution.
"In short, The constitution of a Christian Nation as I imagine it would be very close to the U.S. constitution but more specific in terms of protecting the unborn, defining marriage as between a man and a woman, more explicit protections of religious liberty (while encouraging religion), civil rights which cannot be interpreted to lead to quotas and preferences, etc."
This is really the crux of the argument then, isn't it? My point is that you have the ability to change our constitution to mirror your goals. It's not easy, but it can be done. Instead, you propose the impossible path of secession, making the reforms you suggest (and that I don't necessarily disagree with) also impossible.
Secularism doesn't HAVE to be the perverted and convoluted concept we have today. It is so because we have allowed it to become this - what makes you so sure you can prevent it from happening in this hypothetical new christian nation?
Plain and simple what you have is a political platform, not a secessionist agenda. The changes you seek need to be implemented in the political context so that the greater moral goals can be achieved. Any other path will lead to ridicule and more perverted secularism - surely you can see that?
BTW- minor commments or your comments....of COURSE Christianity does not equal tyranny. tyranny is the domain of men, some of whom historically have used faith to further their aims.
And...with all due respect, that post was totally moronic. I have no further desire to communicate with you. Bye.
With all due respect, no it was not moronic. It was logical and succinct, and it was an answer to your question. That's more than you've provided as an answer to our question. Why was the American Revolution justified?
I'm afraid it's wishful thinking at this point. Secession would be more likely than any such reforms.
Secularism doesn't HAVE to be the perverted and convoluted concept we have today. It is so because we have allowed it to become this- what makes you so sure you can prevent it from happening in this hypothetical new christian nation?
By definition, Secularism is an incoherent worldview. Christian theism is by far the consistent worldview. The fact that the best worldview (and therefore basis for a government) could be abused by some does not change the fact that it is the best worldview (and basis for government). No system is above abuse. Secularism, by it's very definition, is a breeding ground for abuse.
I recommend the trancendental argument as enunciated by Greg Bahnsen and Cornelius Van Til for further a further development of this (see cmfnow.com).
Plain and simple what you have is a political platform, not a secessionist agenda.
False disjunct fallacy.
The changes you seek need to be implemented in the political context so that the greater moral goals can be achieved. Any other path will lead to ridicule and more perverted secularism - surely you can see that?
That's pretty much the view expressed towards those who argued for our declaration of independence. It is no more valid now than it was then. In fact, we have more justification to secede now. I grant it will be difficult. But, frankly speaking, many secularists would bless our "departure", so they might support it.
BTW- minor commments or your comments....of COURSE Christianity does not equal tyranny. tyranny is the domain of men, some of whom historically have used faith to further their aims.
The worst tyrants were those who based their actions on the faith of secularism (atheistic communism, etc.) to further their aims.
"False disjunct fallacy"
then that makes two of us.......
I haven't given up on this country. It's going to take more than a "trancendental argument" to turn me away.
It's really not very trancendental at all. Independence is won, not apathetically achieved (except maybe for Canada), and I don't think people will grant you your wished for christian state just to shut you up - especially since you don't really make too much sense. You are soon (if not already) to be relegated to the looney bin - like the Black Nationalists - who also wanted their own country.
I'm loathe to give you advice in this matter, but you would have better success looking at the Amish model in PA. who are allowed to pursue a "distinct society" within the confines of the overall secular state.
Even you may see the futility of your quest when you attempt to come up with a Constitution for this shangri-la, which I am assuming will be in the not too distant future. I look forward to reading it, and the debate within your movement.
Regards-
IMO you are a nutcase and this discussion is no longer of any positive use. In fact it left that realm long ago.
In case you are interested, here is a thread where I believe that we can agree
Many of those soldiers who fought in the American Revolution were sworn to allegiance to the British Crown.
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.