States petition for secession

But I'm not talking about changing anything "IN THE USA!" I'm talking about how I'd like to see a Christian state set up completely separate from the USA and governed by Christian principles. This thread is about SECESSION, remember?I also didn't say anything about "MOST" of the Constitution. I think probably MOST of it is quite viable as written for the purposes of the state I have in mind. I think the first amendment would have to be strengthened to reflect what I think it should originally have guaranteed, but certainly not eliminated.I believe I posted somewhere along here the proposal for a Christian Preamble to the Constitution that was brought up on a few occasions in the past, which I hadn't known about until recently. Something like that might suffice for the Constitution of the state I have in mind. But all this stuff is just hypothetical attempts to imagine feasible possibilities for a SEPARATE GOVERNMENT, not the present USA.I don't want a democracy obviously because all ideologies cannot have equal power, and it was somebody else who TOLD me that what I want is not a republic either so I simply accepted that. I don't care what you call it I'm simply trying to get defined what I think would work, and the basic idea is still the Pilgrim and Puritan colonies.And again, none of this affects the current government. I simply want out from UNDER that government. You all can do as you please with it, but please let me out.Yes, I know it won't happen.

What are you trying to do? Convince me that Christian freedoms are NOT being infringed in this country? Sorry but Christians know they are. This thread is not sjupposed to be about all the legalities involved but about the desire on the part of conservatives and Christians to do it our own way. All you are doing is trying to convince me that I should be happy with your way of looking at it. GBut that's what we swant out from under.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

?????

Probably, yes, but I haven't studied all that. Why should you care? You aren't going to live in my state.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well, there you have it. You, in concert with this benighted culture I want out of, have decided that it is hate speech to quote the Bible and enforce it. (ABE: And now by an edit you are trying to smear me with that evil organization that pickets funerals. I simply believe the Bible which tells us that homosexuality is sin, a violation of God's laws, and Christian preachers should be allowed to say so without the likes of your kind of nastiness being spewed at them).Christians do not hate sinners but we certainly do want to be able to define clearly what sin is, that means ALL sin, not just homosexual sin, but this is what you would prohibit by your twisted definition. The only hate here is yours by defining away the right of Christians to quote and apply the Bible.It is your definition that infringes on my freedom as a Christian, a freedom supposedly guaranteed by the First Amendment, but here you have perfectly proved what I've been saying, that it does not guarantee me that at all, by the revisionist definition you hold of it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Here we go with another statement of the reasons I want out of this country, another of the nasty revisionist Christianity-hating dogmas of today that make it oh so clear that we no longer have ANY freedom whatever to live as we please and teach as we please. This is why we need to secede.The only hate being spewed here is yours, funny you can't hear yourself. If you could you'd put me in prison or kill me,or at least when they -- they who share your evil views -- do start doing that you're going to look the other way because with my Bible beliefs I "deserve" it but no, it's not YOU hating anybody. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Consider what RAZD and Theodoric just posted about my supposed hate speech if you want to get a feeling for how marginalized and threatened and hated Christians who do nothing but preach the Bible are in this country these days.

Oh that is SO funny. I'm the one who wants to destroy freedom of speech in the very act of pointing out that it is the speech of Christians that is under attack here, and in the nastiest possible terms.PLEASE just let us go and start our own state. Nobody has to to join us, nobody has to be subject to our views, but I SO wish I weren't subject to yours.Oh we ARE already marginalized but I know it's going to get worse. When we really ARE marginalized then all the Christian haters will be happy and dance for joy.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well, most of us do believe we have evidence, I keep saying this is not "blind" faith, it IS based on evidence, lots and lots of evidence that comes to us through witnesses. What Hodge means you don't reveal since you don't quote him but I'd suspect he means what I mean. Yes, it was about the complete ridculousness of it, only since some of us don't think it's ridiculous that side is getting argued as well. If you want to declare me off topic I guess you can do that. Again, I'm quite sure that Hodge didn't mean evidence in the sense you mean it.Since we will have laws against atheism I suppose those are the options, yes. They will have to live under our laws as written or leave. This would have to be determined as the state took form, what limits there might be on those who have alien views. They certainly would not be allowed to hold office or teach their views, but they might be allowed to vote in some elections depending on what the election was about, since they should have the right to arrange some things according to their wishes if they want to do so among people whose views they have come to hate.But of course all these possibilities do just underscore that this whole idea is no doubt not feasible as you suggest. See above. This sort of thing has to be guarded against in my state if it is to remain a Christian state. Yes you are probably right. The situation NOW in the USA, however, is that it is the Christians who are being put in the position of being silenced or leave, and very possibly worse as many of us read the signs. That is why I'm entertaining the idea of secession at all. This would have to do with how well the laws are written, understood and enforced. Nevertheless, I agree that in this fallen world all this is probably not possible. But again, it's the Christians who are being marginalized in the USA these days, that's why secession looks good to me. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

They've called a fundamental teaching of the Bible "hate speech" and accused me of "spewing hate" because I believe what the Bible says about homosexuality as sin.That's not mere "disagreement," Dr. A., that is a heavily value-laden attack on anyone who believes the Bible. Your calling it "dumb" adds to the prejudice such terms create against my beliefs. It's just a matter of time before such views, which are rapidly poisoning the whole atmosphere we live in these days, become the basis for persecuting Christians for "hate speech."There are reports that pastors have already been arrested, I think in Canada, for teaching that homosexuality is sin, on the basis of its being "hate speech." Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

If a pastor preaches the Bible straightforwardly to his congregation and preaches it in his Bible based articles, is that "imposing" his views on anyone? Phelps goes out and pickets the funerals of soldiers, now that IS imposing his views on people. That you would put me in that camp for merely stating that homosexuality is sin as if that is imposing my views on anyone, is a very scary attack on my freedom of speech it seems to me and a major major reason I wish I could get free of those who talk as you do which is infecting the whole country.Of course if I dared to preach all this on a street corner you'd want me arrested wouldn't you?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Apparently I was wrong about Canada, but here's a report that it happened in 2010 in England: ABE: Ah but specifically googling Canada does get reports that it happened there as well, although it was overturned. But as Mohler says above the very fact that it happened at all is a sign of the times that it's only going to get worse. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'm sure that's how all the early signs of anti-Semitism were dismissed in Germany too. Na, can't really happen, just your nervous imagination, they aren't going to be arresting pastors and Christians, na.ABE: Probably sounded a lot like Rahvin's previous post too, promising to protect all those evil Jews who were ruining Germany and so on. We'll defend your right to be evil. Until someone comes along who has the power to take that right away, and then you'll find yourself occupied elsewhere.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You say I don't understand the First Amendment very well, but I think what that amounts to is simply that I reject the revisionist interpretations of it that you accept. This is a perfect example of the corrupt revisionist interpretation of the Amendment, vile sophistry. The first clause prohibits Congress from making a law establishing a state religion, period. To interpret that to make everyone in a government job the equivalent of Congress is insane. Nobody can MAKE a law BUT Congress. Legitimately anyway, leaving aside for the moment the fact that both the Supreme Court and the President like to usurp that prerogative. The idea is that the government is not to open its foul mouth on the subject of religion AT ALL. But now thanks to twisted logic if a teacher, now called a "state actor" brings a religious text to school that can be interpreted as the equivalent of "making a law respecting the establishment of religion" and you think this makes sense and this is why I want out of here. Properly understood there is no conflict whatever. The government is to keep its dirty paws off religion both in the sense of deciding that a particular religion represents the government, and in the sense of keeping people, and that includes teachers, from practicing their religion wherever they want to, including on school premises. But now the teacher is prohibited the free exercise of his/her religion because of being insanely defined as a "state actor" who would then be in the position of defining the religion of the whole nation. Wackadoo. I don't know about the Jewish version, but Rome included the part about having no other gods before the true God, carving idols and bowing down to them, under the first commandment, sort of to hide it there, or maybe they eliminated it altogether, I'm not completely sure how they did that, but the point is they don't treat it as a commandment in its own right as Protestants to, the reason of course being that bowing down to graven images is a major part of their pagan idolatrous religionEdited by Faith, : No reason given.

I read Madison a long time ago and found it a good argument and him a genuine Christian although I would have to reread it, which i'm not going to do now, though at first glance I don't see the horrible errors in what I said that you accuse me of.FYI I'm not a fan of David Barton at all who I think has deceived Christians for years now.You don't seem to have the slightest idea what I've been trying to say here about how I'd like to get out from under the blue ideology, and I've said absolutely nothing that would limit other people's rights, although people keep trying to pin that on me. I have no desire whatever to limit anyone's rights, I simply do not want to be under the rule of some ideologies that I strongly object to personally, such as the current administration. It does appear after playing with the idea that there's nothing I can do about it, that there is no way to set up an alternate state that would operate well, and it perhaps might have to end up stepping on rights of others that I don't want to step on, so that's the end of that thought experiment.As for religion I'm happy to make provision for people to practice whatever belief they want, I simply do not want to allow some of them political power because they would dominate ME by it. And you for that matter. What you seem to overlook is that there are some religions that would not allow the same freedom to me you think I'm trying to restrict for them, which I'm not, and that's what I was pondering how to get out from under in my own state -- THEIR tyranny. There is an incredible naivete about the world domination aims of both Catholicism and Islam. Protestantism has no such aims. As for individual members I would say nothing against people's practicing whatever they want, individual conscience being inviolable as I see it. I simply don't want their organization ruling over me.If my Christian state isn't possible, which seems to be the case, then it isn't possible, but I've never had any of the evil intentions you impute to me, which you seem to delight in imputing. But that may be my fault for lack of clarity.As for the first amendment again I think you are screaming into the wind. Perhaps I'll come back eventually and try to figure out if there's anything worth responding to in your vicious misdirected diatribe.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.