States petition for secession

As I understand how it works, you do not need to be a US citizen to serve in the US military. Military service is a path to citizenship, but I do not believe that it is a requirement. For example, we have gotten many Phillipinos enlisting and retiring to go home to live in the Phillipines and receive their retirement pay there (one Navy CAPT I served with was involved in a fraud investigation where the family did not report the death of the retired member and kept cashing his checks).No idea about Social Security in such a case, though. PS
Oh, most definitely build the tallest wall we can!Edited by dwise1, : PS

There's a long history of secession movements in this country: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States.Here's a list of secession proposals: http://en.wikipedia.org/...of_U.S._state_secession_proposals. I didn't see the ones that you have mentioned. Just more of the same type of wing-nuttery that Republicans have sunk to.

Examples, please! Specific examples!As for what the intention of the First Amendment was, shouldn't you consider what the drafter of the First Amendment, James Madison, thought? Read his A Memorial and Remonstrance, which he wrote a few years before -- if you would prefer to not read my page, then just Google on the title and you will find the exact same text everywhere else. It should be intuitively obvious to even the most casual observer (some engineer-speak I've picked up) that it applies to everybody of all faiths, not just to Christians. Furthermore, it obviously applies to all forms of Christianity, including the multitude of Christians whom you do not wish to recognize as such. IOW, the First Amendment is not just for Christians, but rather for all Americans. BTW, the second clause is the first known (to me, at least) description of Jefferson's "Wall of Separation", though in 1785, about 25 years before Jefferson's reference.So do please be forthcoming with your specific examples of our government violating the First Amendment. I can offer three, all of them in the mid 1950's, within my own lifetime and, I assume, also within yours:
1954 -- adding the sectarian religious wording "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance.
1955 -- placing on all US currency the sectarian religious wording "In God We Trust".
1956 -- replacing the US National Motto since 1776, "E Pluribus Unum", with the blatantly sectarian religious phrase, "In God We Trust".Extra Credit: after having reading what James Madison had to say about the mixing of religion and government resulting in making religion meaningless, read about the challenges to those mid-1950's acts of Congress and how the federal courts upheld those laws because those religious statements are meaningless.

Separate governments over the same territory. Frankly, I don't see how that could possibly work. Just trying to work out the every-day police jurisdiction problems would be a nightmare. But public utilities would be even worse. Having to maintain two separate sets of utilities? Where any individual household could switch its affiliation at any time, requiring physical reconfiguration of power lines, sewer lines, water lines, gas lines, etc. And that's just the tip of the iceberg!And, I agree, the virtual idea also is impractical. The fundamental problem is that, while blues are able to live and work with others who are different from themselves, reds have demonstrated themselves quite vocally to be incapable, or at least intransigently unwilling, of that basic social skill. Complete physical separation would be the only choice, outside of reds learning to live and play nice with others.As for separate states seceding off, how is that supposed to work? Referring to a Presidential Election map printed by a local newspaper, a libertarian newspaper that is considered by many as too right-wing in this ugly red spot in the blue state of California, the only states I can see that are devoid of any blue are Utah, Oklahoma, and West Virginia. If any other states were to secede and join this Red Confederation, what are they to do with their own blue regions? Expel the blues, like Spain expelled the Jews in 1492, thus leading directly into the Spanish Inquisition? What about those blues' properties, ongoing businesses? Are the Reds prepared to allow the Blues to live within their new territories with all their Blue rights intact? When I worked in Germany in 1973, a co-worker told me of his family. They used to live in either East Prussia or in the eastern portion of Germany. Then one day the occupying Soviet forces told them that this land was now Poland and they had to leave. Forced emigration. Is that what you intend for the large numbers of Blues trapped within the seceding Red states? Or are you thinking of herding all those Blues into refugee camps after having taken all their properties, jobs, lives, etc, away from them?This is all prime material for a sci-fi distopia. I plan on writing more on this!

That's an interesting topic in itself. Public schools kind of grew up organically in our early history, with a Unitarian being credited with founding the public school system in the early 1800's. But early on, contrary to the First Amendment, Protestants took control of the school systems and inserted Protestant practices, Protestant Bible readings, Protestant prayers, etc, into the curriculum. Admittedly, most people did not understand the First Amendment at the time and probably navely assumed that their own particular Protestant beliefs were universal *.Then came the Catholics. Massive waves of Irish and Italian Catholic immigrants streamed into the USA in the second half of the 19th Century -- the mass recruitment into the US Army of Irish Catholic immigrants as soon as they disembarked led to their defections in the Mexican-American War (1846-1848; "from the Halls of Montezuma") and the formation of Mexico's Saint Patrick's Battalion, "Los San Patricios").Where did those Catholic immigrants' children go to school? To the public schools, of course. And what met them there? Protestant prayers, bible readings, etc. The Protestants were forcing their Protestant beliefs upon those Catholic children. Wouldn't you agree that that was contrary to the intent of the First Amendment? That a government agency was forcing a foreign religion upon citizens? Seriously, if you personally do not agree that that is what was happening, do please state so here and now!Of course, the parents protested. And what was the Establishment's response? They ignored the protests. I had read one account, which I'm unfortunately unable to find again, that a Catholic bishop (or arch-bishop; as I said, I cannot find that reference) in Baltimore (as I recall) asked whether the Catholic students couldn't be given Catholic readings and prayers instead of Protestant, and it resulted in three days of violent anti-Catholic riots in the streets. Good Protestant Christian witnessing there!So now the Catholics had to decide to create their own parochial school system. And they sought to obtain public funds for these schools, just as the public schools got. So now the Protestants passed state laws barring Catholics from getting public funding for their schools and they got court rulings barring Catholics from getting public funding for their schools. So now the Catholics were on their own and dependent on their own funding.Then starting in the late 1940's with a Jewish parent's lawsuit against Christianity being shoved down his child's throat (a most vile thing to any Jew, given two millennia of Christian atrocities against the Jews -- and also a blatant violation of the First Amendment, wouldn't you, Faith, agree? Or if not, the do please explain most eloquently why not), the Protestants' hold on the public school system was stripped away. Then in the 1980's and beyond, private Christian schools repeatedly tried to obtain public funds for their schools and at every turn they were frustrated by the very same laws and court decisions that they had instituted against the Catholics.Gotta love it when a plan comes together like that!{* FOOTNOTE:
In basic training when our Training Instructor (TI) was finished assigning Protestant and Catholic leaders to march those segments of our flight off to chapel on Sundays, he asked if he had missed anybody and a lone hand went up. "What else is there?", he barked out. "I'm Jewish.", came the answer.
}

OK, I'll hold you to that. Though, yes, one government over one territory does make infinitely more sense. Though there are many more questions. Of course, that would assume that the Blue territories would cooperate with the newly founded Reds. Where are your guarantees? Without those guarantees, your idea is worthless.We had something similar in Orange County. At the outbreak of WWII, all Japanese-Americans were interned in concentration camps and their properties and businesses were impounded by the government. After the war, "reparations" were made. The Santa Ana River is listed as one of the worst rivers for flooding west of the Continental Divide and so the Army Corps of Engineers has constructed an impressive flood control system on the river. Before that, the river had flooded many times, leaving the area known as Fountain Valley a depository from those floods, filled with sandy soil that is not good for farming. So that is what we gave the Japanese-Americans for "restitution". So those Japanese farmers made that poor soil flourish ("fuck you, white man!"). Then the city governments decided that they could make more money by planting houses instead of crops, so they started taxing the Japanese-American farmers out of business.But would the Blue farmers and businessmen be able to do as well? A farmer who had prime farming land that he had inherited from his family many generations back is suddenly forced to move to rocky mountainous land? And a business depends on its clientele, which it builds over the years. My father was a general contractor. One of the things he taught me was that a business, such as a restaurant, will take two to four years to start to show a profit. Even if a business only moves across the street, it will lose a large part of its clientele. So suddenly and arbitrarily you require a business to relocate, you think think that shouldn't be any problem? They've been considered. They won't work.

Well, shouldn't you consider that that "original Protestant Christianity" is deserving of being "undermined and lost"? Especially since your own particular Christianity is of later origin? And since the "founding inspiration of the country" is not your own particular flavor of Christianity, but rather something more derived from the Enlightenment? Assuming that the Revolutionary Period common Christianity would have been identical to your own particular Christianity is rather obsurd, whouldn't you have to agree? Especially considering the many new aspects to your theology that post-dates the Revolution? Archibald Alexander Hodge? Cannot find at the moment anything about public education. Though your appeal to "Protestants" continues to imply some kind of uniformity that simply does not exist in any specific manner. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, Oscar? Which means "What the frak, over?". Which means that that makes no actual sense whatsoever.From the Declaration of Independence, we are talking about the Rights of Man and not about the Divine Rights of Kings. That's what makes Jefferson's document so revolutionary. From the Preamble of the Constitution of the United States of America:

quote:

---

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

---

which in the "secular humanist" Radical Religious Right (RRR) rhetorics of the 1980's was "secular humanism" at its worst.So then just what precisely are you referring to? Yes, the sentiment against Catholics was strong in colonial times. And it was strong throughout the 19th century. And it was still strong up until 1960 when we elected a Catholic President. So what?Does the First Amendment only apply to your own particularly approved of brand of Christians? Or does it apply to all Americans?

What the hell are you talking about?Provide specific quotes that you are purportedly responding to!If you instead are just posting absolute nonsense, then you obviously have nothing to say.

I am indeed considering all of the discussion in good faith.Since you are claiming otherwise, it is plainly you who is not arguing in good faith. Which is sadly typical of "good Christians".Fuck you too! -- though I am the one operating in good faith whereas you are the one who is blatantly false.Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.

Yet again, What the hell are you talking about?Please be specific and quote from original sources.

Apparently, you are currently retired, whereas I still work for a living. I very much doubt that.Fundamentalism dates back around 1900. The Rapture a few decades around that.Also, the Founding Fathers represented a range of beliefs. How could you possibly state that your beliefs are the same as theirs? Which specific Founding Father held the exact same belief as yours? And what is your documentation for that? Yet again, we would need to establish just what exactly the "biblical faith that founded the nation" was and how it was "betrayed". You have so far not done so. Of course I'm thinking of the Fundamentals (circa 1900) and the Rapture (circa late 1800's), etc. Without a specific list, I am obviously at a disadvantage.A definitive list on your part of your particular beliefs and of the particular beliefs of the Founding Fathers and how they match up item for item would definitely help in this discussion. Could you please provide that? Well now, isn't that your fundamental problem?First, who has any authority at all to decide what is Protestant and what is not? Do you? Hell no! One of the defining characteristics of Protestants is that when they disagree with any particular theological point, they simply splinter off into yet another Protestant theology. Even if their particular Protestant theology does not agree with your own, it is still nonetheless a Protestant theology.Interestingly, I had an encounter last night with a "Catholic Bible Believer" of the female persuasion. She was very firmly grounded on her Bible Believing theology. She was also puzzled about me, since I seemed to her to be of her theology whereas I stated that I was not. There appeared to be on her part an assumption that a sympathetic/empathetic position had to be "bible-based". There also appeared to have been an assumption that such a position had to imply an actual commitment to such a position. Of course, I have personally observed a pathelogical liar assume the "bible-believer" position and I have been my normal self and been mistaken for a "bible-believer" (something that I gave up about 50 years ago) or even a Mormon.The rest doesn't even make an sense.

I guess it still boils down to the First Amendment.Does it only apply to your own very particular Christian theology, to to every American?

So then, you have no specific examples of First Amendment violations to offer.Why did you lie to us? What is Christian doctrine on lying and deceiving?

Faith stated in Message 179: I very specifically requested specific examples of the government violating the First Amendment. I even provided three examples of government violations myself, from 1954, 1955, and 1956. Faith then spent several posts avoiding that request. The only conclusion I can draw from that is that Faith had made false statements in Message 179 and that she knew those statements to be false as evidenced by her avoidance of my simple and pertinent request for specific examples.At any rate, the question of what Christian doctrine is on lying and deceiving is highly pertinent in any discussion of "creation science".Edited by dwise1, : Corrected verb tense.

All this talk of splitting up the country through Red/Blue secession is rich fodder for distopia fiction, be it in book or movie form. Maybe a writer will see this and develop the ideas. At any rate, it should be interesting to kick some ideas around.The "red card"/"blue card" idea is interesting, but not practical. Having different rules for different groups of people living in the same society would be a nightmare for law enforcement, much more so if based on actual cards, since until someone produced their card it would be impossible to tell how to deal with that person. Rather, in order to immediately identify what you are dealing with, there would need to be immediate visual cues, such as attire. I would therefore propose very strict rules for the type of clothing one could wear. Blues, being the normals, could wear normal clothing, while the Reds would need to wear very distinctive clothing that would make them stand out, perhaps various forms of Pilgram clothing, since they want so much to emulate the Pilgrams. Nor is this idea without precedent, since medieval laws dictated what clothing every class of person was allowed to wear. The Jews especially had to wear very distinctive clothing to make them stand out. In keeping with that tradition, Reds should probably also be required to only live within special communities set aside for them alone, which in Italian were called "ghetti" (singular, "ghetto"). It would be very nice irony for Reds (being Red on religious grounds) to share the same fate that they had meted out to others previously.But having both parties co-existing in the same society wouldn't work. Again, the Blues would not be the problem, but rather the problem is with the Reds. Indeed, this entire discussion is due to the Reds' inability or abject refusal to live with others; the Blues do not even begin to have that kind of problem. The only "solution" that would make any sense (actually, the real solution is for Reds to grow up and learn to live with others, but apparently they are too developmentally challenged for that) would be for territories to secede from the Union, but that "solution" is rife with problems.First, how would that secession be conducted? By state? But how then would they handle their own Blue regions? As I noted, there are only a few states (Utah, Oklahoma, and West Virginia, as I recall) that contained no blue counties in the last election; even Texas, the prime candidate for secession, had wide areas of very deep blue. Even within those Red regions there are many Blue citizens. How would they be treated? Basically, we are talking about a form of the Taliban taking over parts of the country. How will the Blues living in those parts of the country be treated? Would they be forced to leave, to become refugees? Wouldn't they be entitled to try to defend their homes from such a hostile takeover? Homeowners have a lot of equity tied up in their properties. Who would reimburse them for the loss of having to abandon those homes or to sell them to Red racketeers at a huge loss? Who would finance their forced resettlement to Blue territory? Basically, we'd have the Reds replaying the Israeli takeover of Palestine along with the same baggage that continues to contribute to Middle East instability and volatility. Even if states themselves would split up by counties, the same problems would still exist.And how would those Red territories do business? What will they have that will be valuable enough for Blue companies to want to take the enormous risk of doing business with them despite the Taliban-like draconian laws that they'd be exposing themselves and their employees to? Inter-state commerce would also suffer, since now they'd have to be shipping through a foreign country, especially if secession results in a Red/Blue patchwork, leaving Blue cities isolated in a sea of Red, not unlike the status of West Berlin before Reunification and equally vulnerable to a Red seige though without much hope for an airlift campaign to sustain them as we had done for over a year for Berlin.But the real problem would be the very nature of Reds themselves. They cannot get along with anybody else; they cannot tolerate anybody who is the least bit different. Over time, some Reds will start to form opinions that are different the opinions of other Reds. How will Reds deal with that? Increase the level of oppression against their own? Expell those dissident Reds? To where? Certainly not to any Blue territories; the Blues wouldn't have as much a problem with that as would the exiled Reds who would chafe as they do now at having to live in Blue territory. And if too many Reds turn dissident, what then? They would do what they had learned to do, secede from the Red nation. So over time, the Red nation would repeatedly splinter apart into smaller and smaller territories, Balkanizing along "ethnic" lines and undoubtedly through less than peaceful actions (ie, bloody civil war). And those territories would harbor long-held hatred for each other and would undoubtedly war against each other at every opportunity in attempts at "ethnic cleansing". A Red nation cannot help but to descend into chaos. A Red nation is doomed to spectacular and bloody failure.A Blue nation would fare far better, since the characteristic trait of Blues is that they have grown up and learned to get along with others, to tolerate differences and to resolve conflict fairly and maturely. So then the real solution to our problem is not secession, but rather for Reds to finally grow up and learn to play with others.----------------"Those who do not learn the lessons of science fiction are condemned to live them." -- email tag line