quote:Christians look to form 'new nation' within U.S. Same-sex marriage called last straw prompting plan for 1 state to secede
Posted: May 24, 2004 By Joe Kovacs
One less star?
Calling the approval of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts "the straw that broke the camel's back," a group of Christian activists is in the beginning stages of an effort to have one state secede from the United States to become its own sovereign nation.
...
The plan initially calls for at least 12,000 Christians willing to be active in political campaigns to move to the Palmetto State.
...
If all goes according to plan, Burnell is hoping to have a constitutional convention by 2014, with a president of the new nation – still to be known as South Carolina – elected in 2016, which is also a presidential election year in the U.S.
He says the nation would be founded on Christian principles, and the people writing its constitution would have to hash out details to safeguard it as a Christian republic.
For now, Burnell prefers to shy away from specifics on the precise laws governing the country.
quote:Christians have actively tried to return the United States to their moral foundations for more than 20 years. We now have a "Christian" president, a "Christian" attorney general, and a Republican Congress and Supreme Court. Yet consider this:
Abortion continues unabated
Sodomite marriage is now legal in Massachusetts (and coming soon to a neighborhood near you)
Children still may not pray in our schools
Our schools continue to teach the clearly discredited theory of Darwinian evolution
The Bible is still not welcome in schools except under unconstitutional strict FEDERAL guidelines
The 10 Commandments remain banned from public display
Sodomy is now legal AND celebrated as "diversity" rather than perversion
Preaching Christianity will soon be outlawed as "hate speech"
Attempts at reform have proven futile. Future elections will not stop the above atrocities, but rather will exacerbate them and lead us down an even more deadly path.
Anyone from South Carolina hear anything about this? Any idea if anyone will seriously do this? (I doubt it, but I'm curious.) I'm actually sympathetic to the idea of states seceding for political reasons -- I tend to think that small is beautiful and that smaller countries can be more democratic -- but I'm not sympathetic to the idea of South Carolina becoming a Christian theocracy...
Posts: 2911 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Removing a large number of ignorant fundamentalists from the national voting pool at the cost of one of our most useless states would seem like a very beneficial trade, and a cost I'd be willing to endure.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Weren't the libertarians or someone trying to do this in Vermont or New Hampshire? If it was a link to the Onion I wouldn't have been surprised to find it a spoof. On the other hand it sounds typically rabid.
posted
If I recall correctly, the Libertarians were just wanting to move a small North Eastern state in large enough numbers to be able to effect it's elections. They didn't want to acutally secede from the union.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thing is, the effort is doomed to fail. There's not a devoted Libertarian in Vermont who, when witnessing the sudden skyrocketing of real estate values, wouldn't immediately put his house on the market -- thus defeating the point of the exercise. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
And they weren't trying to secede, but to concentrate their political power in a way to have some sort of electoral (and electoral college) experience.
posted
The road to factionalism in the United States continues to roll. I see a day, how close or far in the distance I cannot say, when the U.S. will break into balkanization according to ideology and religion. It has already happened at an emotional level. That usually, if sustained, leads to a physical level that can lead to war. And, this time it won't be a Civil War, but Anarchy.
I believe that the United States, according to its current path, only has about 100 years left.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, it wouldn't be THAT hard to fix. For example, if we had proportional voting, dispersed minorities wouldn't need to relocate in order to have their votes count.
Posts: 1839 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the meantime, how many people would support rounding up libertarian secessionists in New Hampshire, religious secessionists in South Carolina and then locking them all together in a room for a very few days?
The deal? They get their independent state, but they only get ONE and they have to share it. And we won't let them out until they agree on a constitution.
And, of course, we film it.
OK - if this turns up on the fall schedule as the newest reality show, I want you all to support me when I claim to have originated this idea.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am not sure how "proportional voting" would work. Partly, because I am not sure what proportion you are talking about. Second, if you mean what I think you mean than the idea of equality as its currently understood would have to be discarded and be replaced by profiling.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The road to factionalism in the United States continues to roll. I see a day, how close or far in the distance I cannot say, when the U.S. will break into balkanization according to ideology and religion. It has already happened at an emotional level. That usually, if sustained, leads to a physical level that can lead to war. And, this time it won't be a Civil War, but Anarchy.
Why? The last time, we had a civil war, not anarchy. You think we are less stable now?
Today we have even more of a monolithic culture and a middle class with serious financial incentive to stay a nation.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe it is because we have a monolithic culture today that it would lead to anarchy rather than a two way break. There is no North/South split like there was the first time. That means that liberals, conservatives, blacks, whites, Christians, Atheists, Libertarians and so forth will be vying for more power. Especially when all these sides seem to be calling the other Evil all the time.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think I agree that it will lead to anarchy, but I can see why it would be more likely in this situation.
With the civil war, the sides pretty well followed geographic boundaries. And while it is true that middle america and the south tend to be more conservative, the lines are not nearly as clear in this situation.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think there are strong secessionist movements in Hawaii and Nevada as well. The Nevadans wanting to mint their own coins and the native Hawaiians wanting their islands back.
My crystal ball says that there will eventually be anarchy in the Western United States over the allocation of Colorado River water. Water rights in the west is a very big deal, probably bigger than a Christian movement opposing gay marriage.
A few states in the west have all the necessary raw materials within their borders to successfully pull off secession: iron ore, coal, petroleum, copper, natural gas, lumber, wheat, fresh water.
And then there are folks trying to split California into three states.
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Right. When everyone shops at the same store, and war disrupts the supply lines to that store, then all out war is much less likely.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: The road to factionalism in the United States continues to roll. I see a day, how close or far in the distance I cannot say, when the U.S. will break into balkanization according to ideology and religion. It has already happened at an emotional level. That usually, if sustained, leads to a physical level that can lead to war. And, this time it won't be a Civil War, but Anarchy.
This is hillarious though, because both sides are actually supposed to be following an ideology where they know they aren't supposed to persecute people.
Amazing what the need to define your group, and then being annoyed by anyone outside of that definition will do to a perfectly good ideology.
quote:Second, if you mean what I think you mean than the idea of equality as its currently understood would have to be discarded and be replaced by profiling.
Proportional voting is very simple. Right now, if North Carolina votes 60% Republican and 40% Democrat, then all of its electoral votes go to the GOP. In a proportional system, they would go 60/40. The same principle can be applied to legislative seats. The vast majority of the world's democracies use some variation on this theme, in fact.
Posts: 1839 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Aren't there too many McDonald's in America for there to be a war? Or does that not work at the intra-national level, only on the international level?
Posts: 471 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
All we have to do is not give Nevada more water and it will just dry up and float away into the deserrt again....they already use more than their share of the Colorado, and there are some very serious challanges to their rights to the water they already use.
I'll see if I can find the articles I was reading about that, and if I can (I doubt it, ot was 2 years ago, at least) then I'll post it. It was pretty interesting, really.
Oh, BTW, people have been saying they were going to do this sort of thing for years, since before we were even a country. I'm sure it will work as well as it did the last time some ido=iots tried it....
posted
This is SO wierd! Laughable actually. Is this actually real?
I'm sure Cory Burnell would like to be it's supreme leader too... I find it funny that a few people moving there will actually convince the State Government to seceed. Hah.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gah. I was planning on moving to Beaufort at some distant point in the future. That's not gonna happen if it turns into a theocracy. Way to ruin my plans, South Carolina.
posted
Well, Hunting Island for one. And I wouldn't call all the people of a state worthless. It has as much worth as any other state of similar population size.
Posts: 104 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why? The last time, we had a civil war, not anarchy. You think we are less stable now?
There was nothing civil about that war, from either side. Most of of the battles and a great deal of the battlefield was utter anarchy at times. Sherman's March, for example, was systematic slaughter and the burning of whole CITIES.
Posts: 72 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
<edited because while funny to me and while I'm pretty sure who AE is and if they want to use the psuedonym to post comments like that, they are up for grabs, it conflicts with my "Be More Gentle" resolution of the week>
quote:It has as much worth as any other state of similar population size.
Heh. I agree completely. South Carolina, on the bell curve of geography, does a fine job being as worthless as most other states.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Quote: It's always hard to tell who's more arrogant about their state - New Yorkers or Californians.
You obviously have not met too many Texans!
Texas, by the way, came into the United States with the right to leave if they wished. Texas was an independent country (under five different presidents) for ten years before joining the U.S.A..
Reconstruction in Texas was more civil than anywhere else in the south because of this provision.
As a part of the reconstruction, the agreement that allowed Texas to leave the Union was removed.
Texas still has the right, however, to divide up into as many as five states if it chooses (done back at the time of admission into the union because the state was so big and used to include most of New Mexico and parts of Colorado, Utah, and Idaho). Just think, Texas with ten senators!
Posts: 279 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I miss South Carolina deeply. For all the truly awful baggage the South carries around, there is a great deal about Southern culture that is beautiful. In many ways, I still wish the economy had not made it necessary for me to move away. I'm not defending this article. I'm dissenting with those who think South Carolina is worthless. South Carolina is a beautiful place with mild seasons, a broad variety of landscapes, and people who are, by and large, generous and warm-hearted. And I would rather live in South Carolina than in more "sophisticated" places like California and Wisconsin any day.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: The real question is, will they let married gay people in as tourists?
The real question is would gay couples (or individuals or whatever) want to GO there as tourists? None too safe, I would think.
My wife and I did our honeymoon at a tiny bed and breakfast in Charleston. Very sweet and the old flavor of that part of town was cool (we even had period actors wandering around at the time...as they were filming the awful "Scarlett" TV movie at the time). Anyway, things really haven't changed a lot in attitudes. People talked to us two white folk as if we got their racist jokes or racially snide remarks, most from our bed and breakfast hostess (and don't get me going on the stupid squeeking bed ). I would miss seeing the Yorktown without a passport, but feh...let them go.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
I find it funny that a few people moving there will actually convince the State Government to seceed. Hah.
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
). I would miss seeing the Yorktown without a passport, but feh...let them go.![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
