States petition for secession

Just to get down to some realities, my Puritan state would of course have laws against abortion and homosexuality and other sexual violations of God's law, and not permit evolution to be taught in the schools.The Bible would be the law of the land probably through Blackstone's Commentaries, which I believe were Americanized by someone named Tucker if I recall correctly, and would be the basis of all education as it was in the early Colonies, and as it was in the founding of Harvard and Yale and many other universities, and some sort of safeguards against the corruptions of those institutions that occurred over time would have to be put in place.We'd have a Constitution probably similar to the one we have now but tightened up to make Christianity clearly the rule of the land and as far as possible guard against the corruptions that over time eliminated the nation's Christian foundations. The Constitution we have has many virtues but it was crafted by people with an Enlightenment anti-Christian mindset in a betrayal of the majority Christian population, and that has to be righted. Efforts were made at various times to append a Christian Preamble in the hope of correcting it, but I think something more radically Christian than that is needed for our new Puritan state.I'd hope the general atmosphere of our state would be along the lines that DeToqueville reported on when he visitied.There's nothing in such an arrangement to disallow science that I can see, but of course if you insist on defining it as you do then bye bye.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No, I don't think we want a democracy. The US was meant to be a republic not a democracy. I'd like to hear some good discussion of the differences but I want a system that recognizes that there are forces in the world that want to undermine Christianity so the government we'd want to have would aim to prevent that.It's very interesting to read up on why the colonies objected to Catholicism, something we're generally not taught. Samuel Adams wrote something called the Rights of the Colonists in which he makes it clear that Catholics must not be allowed any kind of political power. In our day we're all duped into thinking Catholicism is just another Christian denomination. Big mistake.The average Catholic is generally innocent of any of the plots of Rome but because they are Catholic, Rome uses them like pawns. They are welcome in my state and allowed all the percs of citizenship except political power for that reason.

It does get tiresome to have to explain over and over again that there is nothing in Christianity that opposes science. We simply do not regard evolution as science. It has nothing to do with the healthcare system.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'm WILLING for them to go if they WANT to go. Isn't that what I said? That is not a statement that Christians oppose science, it's just a practical matter that I don't feel like fighting people who disagree with us. I'm sure there are plenty of Christian nonevolutionist technicians who can handle the healthcare technology.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You're so welcome. I'm glad to represent the true Christian thought of the original forefathers of this country that are now so vilified in our modern world.Of course even the Enlightenment-taught Founders would never ever have approved of abortion or homosexual "rights" because they were very clear that although they were not believers in the Christian gospel of Christ as God in human flesh born of a virgin, they DID strongly support Biblical morality as the only guarantee of God's blessing on a nation.Your idea of what the Constitution supposedly supports is pure devilish revisionism and this is exactly why I and others want to secede from this benighted Union.Watch out about that Sharia smear though. The Muslims would behead you for violations of their law not just keep you from political office, and short of that they'd spit on you and push you off the sidewalk for not being one of them. The Pope would stick you in an iron maiden or stretch you on the rack or seal you up inside a wall if he thought you were enough of a heretic, not just keep you from political power.Both Islam and Rome aim to rule the world. Puritans have no such ambition. We want to keep the gospel pure, and we'd like to see people saved, but we're not interested in power.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Sorry that's the Catholics again. Many Protestants DIED at the stake. Jan Hus, Tyndale for translating the Bible, Cranmer, Latimer and Ridley. All former Catholics become Protestant who got burned at the stake. It was a very rare occurence for Protestants to USE the stake. It happened but it was rare. Here's a video about the Inquisition that has many illustrations of "heretics" being burned at the stake among other things.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No stonings. Stupid of you to perpetuate that idiotic misunderstanding of Protestant faith.Try Tucker's Blackstone for the American version.Try the word "God."Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I named two Protestants who burned others at the stake? Who did I name?

Some day try learning how Christians interpret the Old Testament instead of insisting on your blockheaded misapplication. It's been explained to you many times I'm not going to bother again. You want to say stupid things apparently.

We may still execute people for some crimes according to Old Testament standards, which I haven't studied myself so I don't know which, but not all of them I'm sure, and we don't stone people these days so it would be by some other means.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

SPIRIT, NOT LETTER. There's your answer.

Perhaps I just don't have the patience to read all that carefully, but my impatient reading gets me the message that he had burned people at the stake AS A CATHOLIC, not as a Protestant. Yes? For denying the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. So he isn't an example of Protestant burnings at the stake. However, I do admit to being too impatient to read it more carefully, so perhaps you could quote for me any part of it that shows I got it wrong. Thank you.I also gather that Macaulay isn't very gracious toward his recanting and then changing his mind. But of course he DID change his mind and he did put his hand in the flame as he said he would do. Is there something about that fact you would like me to take more carefully into consideration?

God's Laws are not a matter of the clock as He is eternal and His law is eternal. I have to admit to not having studied the reasoning behind how Christians should decide nowadays whether to execute people for various crimes or not.The important thing is to be in obedience to God's will but Israel was a special case and Christians are not a theocracy so it hasn't been an issue. But if we did have a truly Christian state as I keep saying I'd like to have, then the question would come up and need to be thought through.I'm curious but not enough to spend a lot of time on it. This topic has wandered quite a bit and all I really wanted to do was discuss what practical measures might possibly be taken to reorganize the nation so that our clashing ideologies could stop clashing.

Latimer too had been a Catholic priest, so if he presided over burnings at the stake that would only have been expected.Macaulay's odd phrasing about how Cranmer "found out" that the doctrine of transubstantiation "was false" after Henry's death is such fancy prose that I have no idea whether this means he had become a Protestant or not.

No, that is not what I mean. I mean that the Bible is to be interpreted according to the spirit of its intention and not the letter. That's what I said and it's what I meant. The physical trappings change with time, the spirit does not.