States petition for secession

The usual misapplication of scripture, rbp. We ARE to judge each other but always with mercy and not in a pharisaical way that condemns others for sins we also commit, but it's CRUCIAL that we judge DOCTRINE, false teachers and so on, scripture warns against these over and over and over. We are called to "judge angels" so we certainly aren't to read that passage as prohibiting judgement as such. That's really sloppy misreading of scripture.Likewise we must have divisions between different doctrines and beliefs, scripture certainly doesn't mean we're to preserve union with heretics. It's wrong to read those verses the way you do, and it's dangerous too as it puts sheep and wolves together in the same pen. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The inspiration of the original Puritan and Pilgrim colonies was very democratic, really. Go read Winthrop's a Modell of Christian Charity, which reflects his thoughts on the founding of the colony they were traveling to establish. But if blue laws are to be established those would be agreed upon at the founding of the state, not imposed on anybody. If you don't agree to them you don't live in this state. You yourself can live in the red state next door. But again I don't know exactly what laws would properly govern such a state and it's not important to this discussion. The main point is that citizenship in the state would be completely voluntary.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Not quite. Are you planning to hang Quakers, ban Christmas, and reduce the age of consent to 12? The fact that you can't get what you want makes the whole conversation moot. But I'm interested in what it is you do want. You're planning to change the physical layout of the nation?Well, they say that Faith can move mountains.Thank you, I'll be here all week. Try the forbidden fruit.

Well, can at least move BORDERS.I don't get why there is any problem with the general description I've given but i also don't care about the discussion enough to pursue it.

And if you move a border in such a way that has people within that border who don't believe the way you do?Then what? What if they just tell you to take a flying leap?You folks will just not be able to resist trying to legislating your beliefs into law, to be enforced by the power of the state. You're trying that enough now, while the Puritan movement is but a tiny minority.The only way you'll be able to require everyone adhere to your beliefs is through force. Think you're up to it?A couple of additional quotes from our great philosopher, Robert Heinlein:

Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite.

​

Of all the strange crimes that human beings have legislated out of nothing, blasphemy is the most amazing--with obscenity and indecent exposure fighting it out for second and third place.

This topic is supposed to be about how it might be possible to rearrange the nation so that liberals and conservatives don't have to be ruled by each others' ideology. I got more specific about how I'd really like to live in a Christian state, not merely a conservative state.There is no idea of forcing anyone to do anything in any of this. Those who WANT what I want would join me, those who don't wouldn't. I assume enough of my persuasion to run a small state. I would think you would be happy to have us confined to our own state.Moving borders just as everything else in this hypothetical situation would be forced on noone, but done if necessary to accommodate the way we all agree to rearrange the nation. Why you have to make up stuff I have no idea, it seems to be the modus operandi here though, that's all.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Did you see where I mention visitors? What's wrong with your head? And don't you think your group might have the occasional apostate? And as long as we're calling a spade a spade, isn't this entire exercise an inane, wing-nut fantasy on your part?As soon as you tell somebody they cannot do something that they want to do because they disagree with you about the interpretation of whatever you are using, then you have a potential challenge. In fact, if you try to stone someone or implement any kind of cruel/unusual punishment the state is not going to simply butt out because you are volunteers.You cannot secede from the US. You cannot effectively declare yourself independent of the Constitution while you're here. Not even the self governing Native American tribes can do that. Perhaps the answer is as simple as that.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Well golly gee you sure brought all this hypothesizing to a screeching halt. No possibility of secession no possibility of dividing up the ideologies, no point in hypothesizing just forget it. Fine with me.Our laws would deal with spostasy of course, and it's none of your business anyway since I'm not interested in discussing how the state would be run. There is no problem with visitors either.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Of course there is!Theocracies are always about force. They can't survive any other way.Just look at the Middle East today. Just look at the Church during the time when they could assume control, much of two millennia. Look at northern Ireland. Just look at any theocracy anywhere, going back to the bible.And what you are advocating is a theocracy, where almost everyone believes as you do, or enough do so you can take control. How much diversity and tolerance do you expect? What are the minority rights? Say, the right to buy liquor on Sunday? The right to work on Sunday, or to open your store? The right to contraception? How is your ideal Puritan society going to deal with that?I suggest, from what you are posting, that it will be dealt with in the old fashioned way--believe what we say or get out, or we will kill you.I certainly have no faith in the tender mercies of a theocracy--any theocracy!

I disagree.

Fair enough. Show me where I am wrong.Show me a theocracy that encourages minority religions, for example.Saudi Arabia?

Things are usually more complicated than such a report as Macaulay's allows. According to J A Wylie's History of Protestantism, Cranmer was a true servant of God but forced into a position in the King's government that made it difficult for him, a different view than Macaulay's accusation that he simply blew with the winds of power.I don't know anything about Macaulay but I did recently find out that James I of England was a true Christian who was badly misrepresented by an enemy who wrote a false history of his life (I did a blog post about it which includes a video of a talk on the research into his life). In that case it was all built on complete lies. At least I suspect Macaulay of a biased view of his subject.I'm suspicious when true believers as described by Protestant writers I have no reason to doubt are given a bad name by other sources, which is obviously the case with Macaulay's treatment of Cranmer, and I tend to go with the Protestant writers. Here's a chapter on Cranmer and his times in Wylie's book. Of course there's no guarantee that my authority has all the truth either, but you are probably inclined to any report that makes them look bad and a balanced view seems to require this other source of information.

What I disagree with you about is your assessment that all theocracies have to operate by force. Obviously I don't want competing ideologies in my state, that's the whole point of this discussion, But denying political power to minority relgions need not involve any kind of force at all. If they don't want to be governed by Protestant rules they don't have to live in the state. And if they are willing to be so governed they would enjoy peace and goodwill and the right to live by their own beliefs.You of course equate the theocracy I have in mind with Catholic theocracy which DOES enforce its views and burn people at the stake for refusing them. There is no such thing as theological disagreement under the Inquisition. You conform or you're dead. This is why the Protestant colonies outlawed Catholicism (reference Samuel Adams, Rights of the Colonists, if I remember I'll try to find a link). They seek power and seek to overthrow anything that disagrees with them. So you don't permit them to have power, it's common sense.Same with Islam. They do not tolerate ANY deviation from their views and they are constantly seeking to establish their rule over others also on pain of death.There is no such thing as peaceful coexistence with those ideologies, but there would be in my theocracy. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

So the Protestants in northern Ireland are not resorting to violence?But let's try an exercise: is there currently any theocracy that does allow minority rights, particularly in regards to religion? (Except for Israel, which as far as I can think is the only one.)Any ideas?Edited by Coyote, : grammar

You've bought the Catholic propaganda about Northern Ireland. It's always the Catholics that instigate the violence. Sure the Protestants may fight back. The Protestants have no desire to rule the world but the Vatican does.What do you mean by "minority rights?"And by the way there is no such thing as a Protstant theocracy in the world right now.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.