"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.
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.