Skip to comments.Christians look to form 'new nation' within U.S.
Posted on 05/23/2004 11:54:30 PM PDT by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
click here to read article
If things get too bad, Ireland is an option, although they manage to remain Conservative traditionalists by tight-fisted immigration laws that keep out a lot of people who'd want to come there.
1776 was not a surrender.
Same here. Besides; I like South Carolina. Lots of people there who still have some guts.
Appealing idea. I like it. But then, in my opinion, Washington DC in the summer is one of the most miserable places in the country and it doesn't seem to deter them.
You seem to be forgetting that they accept a lifestyle of perversion and subscribe to the liberal/socialist/communist agenda of tyranny over the people. The sooner we all recognize that Satan is the commander-in-chief of the liberal army, the sooner the battle lines can be drawn and effective strategy mounted.
What happened to all those people who were going to move to Vermont last year? What was that group called?
It has already begun. All this talk about sin really puts a crimp in the liberal agenda and they want none of it.
You're probably thinking of the Free State Project and I believe it was New Hampshire.
Gee wonder why not Seattle?
You could run, but you can't hide.
My point is that this is not about legislating Christianity. It's about restoring our original Constitutional government where Chrsitianity can thrive freely.
I disagree. The problem is not with those who would not compromise. The problem is with those who would. If everyone voted and voted their conscience, perhaps everything would be different. But those who vote vote strategy and they end up winning what they deserve -- someone who will strategize and sell them out in order to "win" more power.
Good advice if you mean it, but it doesn't change anything. This is very possibly going to be necessary.
BTW -- the Canadians are already trying it -- Republic of Alberta Forced to choose, I think I'd prefer blizzards to heat and humidity. It's too bad California can't be salvaged.
Personal preference: Make it Tennessee instead.
Most so-called "evangelicals" really aren't. Does that explain a lot?
I think Ireland is a bit too close to satanic, socialist Britain, for my comfort.
Y'all come on down! We'll leave the light on for ya.
The term "evangelical" has been taken over by the so-called "progressives". Someone who calles him/herself an "evangelical" is more likely than not a "liberal" Christian who sees only 1/2 of the picture - Jesus is Love - and ignores sin completely - who are we to judge?
I'll second that......Tenn. has a great location and climate as well as a very patriotic population that I can guarantee will not stand idly by and watch their state become infected with liberalism. After seeing activists there defeat the proposed state income tax not long ago as well as recently denying drivers licenses to illegals, they seem to have their collective heads screwed on straight.
For those having a hard time accepting the idea of a "Christian" nation, we might look back and see that South Carolina was established as a Christian State.
From the South Carolina Constitution of 1778
XXXVIII. That all persons and religious societies who acknowledge that there is one God, and a future state of rewards and punishments, and that God is publicly to be worshipped, shall be freely tolerated. The Christian Protestant religion shall be deemed, and is hereby constituted and declared to be, the established religion of this State. That all denominations of Christian Protestants in this State, demeaning themselves peaceably and faithfully, shall enjoy equal religious and civil privileges. To accomplish this desirable purpose without injury to the religious property of those societies of Christians which are by law already incorporated for the purpose of religious worship, and to put it fully into the power of every other society of Christian Protestants, either already formed or hereafter to be formed, to obtain the like incorporation, it is hereby constituted, appointed, and declared that the respective societies of the Church of England that are already formed in this State for the purpose of religious worship shall still continue incorporate and hold the religious property now in their possession. And that whenever fifteen or more male persons, not under twenty-one years of age, professing the Christian Protestant religion, and agreeing to unite themselves in a society for the purposes of religious worship, they shall, (on complying with the terms hereinafter mentioned,) be, and be constituted a church, and be esteemed and regarded in law as of the established religion of the State, and on a petition to the legislature shall be entitled to be incorporated and to enjoy equal privileges. That every society of Christians so formed shall give themselves a name or denomination by which they shall be called and known in law, and all that associate with them for the purposes of worship shall be esteemed as belonging to the society so called. But that previous to the establishment and incorporation of the respective societies of every denomination as aforesaid, and in order to entitle them thereto, each society so petitioning shall have agreed to and subscribed in a book the following five articles, without which no agreement or union of men upon pretence of religion shall entitle them to be incorporated and esteemed as a church of the established religion of this State:
1st. That there is one eternal God, and a future state of rewards and punishments.
2d. That God is publicly to be worshipped.
3d. That the Christian religion is the true religion.
4th. That the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are of divine inspiration, and are the rule of faith and practice.
5th. That it is lawful and the duty of every man being thereunto called by those that govern, to bear witness to the truth.
And that every inhabitant of this State, when called to make an appeal to God as a witness to truth, shall be permitted to do it in that way which is most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience. And that the people of this State may forever enjoy the right of electing their own pastors or clergy, and at the same time that the State may have sufficient security for the due discharge of the pastoral office, by those who shall be admitted to be clergymen, no person shall officiate as minister of any established church who shall not have been chosen by a majority of the society to which he shall minister, or by persons appointed by the said majority, to choose and procure a minister for them; nor until the minister so chosen and appointed shall have made and subscribed to the following declaration, over and above the aforesaid five articles, viz: "That he is determined by God's grace out of the holy scriptures, to instruct the people committed to his charge, and to teach nothing as required of necessity to eternal salvation but that which he shall be persuaded may be concluded and proved from the scripture; that he will use both public and private admonitions, as well to the sick as to the whole within his cure, as need shall require and occasion shall be given, and that he will be diligent in prayers, and in reading of the same; that he will be diligent to frame and fashion his own self and his family according to the doctrine of Christ, and to make both himself and them, as much as in him lieth, wholesome examples and patterns to the flock of Christ; that he will maintain and set forwards, as much as he can, quietness, peace, and love among all people, and especially among those that are or shall be committed to his charge. No person shall disturb or molest any religious assembly; nor shall use any reproachful, reviling, or abusive language against any church, that being the certain way of disturbing the peace, and of hindering the conversion of any to the truth, by engaging them in quarrels and animosities, to the hatred of the professors, and that profession which otherwise they might be brought to assent to. No person whatsoever shall speak anything in their religious assembly irreverently or seditiously of the government of this State. No person shall, by law, be obliged to pay towards the maintenance and support of a religious worship that he does not freely join in, or has not voluntarily engaged to support. But the churches, chapels, parsonages, glebes, and all other property now belonging to any societies of the Church of England, or any other religious societies, shall remain and be secured to them forever. The poor shall be supported, and elections managed in the accustomed manner, until laws shall be provided to adjust those matters in the most equitable way.
I sympathize. Why not swarm into the relatively underpopulated Northern Calif/Southern Oregon Border area? There's already a secessionist movement there, that dates back to World War 2. They want to break away from the urbanized/liberalized capitals of both CA and OR, and make their own state called "Jefferson". Well.. it's just one more step to go all the way.
It's better that Idaho or Wyoming because you're not on top of the Yellowstone Caldera (due to blow any time), plus there's a coastline and a much better climate than South Carolina. Not to mention the wineries...
I have a question. What about the people who are already there in South Carolina? What would you do with them? They might not want other people taking over their state.
Count on the domino effect. If SC leaves the Union, and gets away with it, you can bet that TN, NC, etc, will follow hot on their heels.
The state was chosen because a high % of the people already there, would be friendly to such a project.
Besides, liberals don't give a d@#% about our feelings when they take over OUR states.
I say this as a 40 year old native Californian who has watched my home state transformed from a paradise to a dump in my lifetime... and the liberals have offered no apologies. So if we clean up some other state and a few of them get upset, should I care?
That would make sense....I've felt for some time that the N.East and West coasts are toast, the border states are being overrun with criminal illegals with their Aztlan/reconquista movement, so in order to start the process of re-invigorating the REPUBLIC (and de-constructing this corporate, mob rule DEMOCRACY) an idea like this should be seriously considered.....sooner than later.
Interesting idea. Should prove exciting to watch. Best parts - elimination of federal income tax, flipping the bird at the Supreme Court, end of of the NEA.
It may not happen exactly that way but think about Utah. They have their state and for the most part the Morman's view prevail there. A similar situation could happen in a southern state. I hope it does. I'd consider moving there from Massachusetts. It's getting really weird up here.
It's hard to accept even the possibility of radical change, IMO because people inherently have a small-picture, right-now view of things. Because the nation withstood all challenges and prospered for 200 years, the incredible majority believe it can withstand anything. But it cannot. The United States is a once-great nation now in rapid decline. Without radical change, it will not stand. It cannot stand.
The rot of moral decay has so infected the country that stopping it through conventional methods is all but impossible. As is pointed out in the article up top, perversion and rank immorality are now celebrated, and that's just one of many examples of the rot. I fear we will indeed suffer more big terror strikes, but the rot from within is what will destroy--or directly lead to the destruction of--this country, not the likes of Osama bin Laden.
No one knows what the outcome will be, how things will shakeout when the breaking point is reached, but there's virtually no doubt in my mind that this point will indeed be reached within the next few decades, perhaps sooner.
We could easily reach a state of weakened disarray that a major power like China could exploit with an attack. Should that happen, I fear the only major support we could count on would be, as always, Britain. Or maybe something civil, internal, will erupt. I don't know. I just know that a nation rotting from the inside out will not stand the test of time.
Okay, sounds good. It's the most isolated archipelago on the planet. I'll move there on your behalf. :-)
Look at the bright side -- if California returns to Mexican jurisdiction, the Democrats will lose 54 electoral votes, and they'll never elect a president again.
I don't think anybody realized the implications of Roe v Wade when it was decided. Although even one abortion is wrong, I doubt anyone foresaw a holocaust of 45 million. It took a while for people to wake up and realize what was happening, and by then it was firmly entrenched. But this time around, a large number of people clearly forsee the dire implications of sodomite marriage, right up front, so there's more of chance to get something done.
Secession over Roe would have been perfectly justified.
It would only make a difference if there was a difference in the candidates. Either end of the same stick aren't a difference.
Jews are militant about any comment affecting them so they are already covered by pc concepts.
It is only open season on Christians of any stripe but mostly on Christians who practice what they passionately believe.
Idaho, but kick out the few remaining white supremicists first.
I figure California is just a few disasters away from becoming spacious again. One major earthquake, terrorist attack and economic collapse and a good amount of the population will leave. Then we can start over. No government money=no socialists and no illegals.
Surely they could find kindered spirits of a sort by confederating with frustrated Wahhabists who are fed up with corrupt secular leaders like Assad and Mubarak somewhere over in the Middle East.
Why, take a slice out of post-war Iraq or Afghanistan, get to settling that madrass/non-madrass point of contention you two would have (not to forget differences over that whole "Allah is the one true god" thing you'd have to hammer out) and get to shutting yourself off from the putridness produced by the "unbelievers"/"indifels" that you so despise.
On a lighter note, imagine if they'd chosen a state bordering New Hampshire? Think a fundamentalist state bordering on a Libertarian-fueled Free State would get along all that well?
Texas would be a lot smarter choice. It has land. It has a coastline. It has its own energy sources.
In addition, it was a former republic (some claim it still has an "out" clause after joining the union) and it has a lot of people that are already willing to secede from the union for other reasons.
In addition, Texas does not have Fort Sumter so it would not be perceived as a mini-replay of the Civil War.
If you could get the 15-20 million Evangelicals who don't vote to vote, it'd make a huge difference.
Agree with this one........most of them are so heavenly minded they are no earthly good!!
Rather than retreating from these invaders and cowering in some corner of a room, maybe it's time to face them and keep what is our own?
As a Christian I can't condone rebellion against authority, as God is the one who establishes the powers that be. If you don't believe this, then you don't believe that all power belongs to God. If these misguided souls wish to change things, there are other ways.
Depravity? In a secular system you cannot use such words. A depraved act is defined in context of moral absolutes. In the absence of moral absolutes a depraved act becomes an 'unacceptable' act and that of course can be redefined over time.
I personally think seceding is just the kind of thing to make things worse - not better.
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.