Christian Exodus

[McCulloch]

http://www.christianexodus.org/
ChristianExodus.org is moving thousands of Christians to South Carolina to reestablish constitutionally limited government founded upon Christian principles. It is evident that the U.S. Constitution has been abandoned under our current federal system, and the efforts of Christian activism to restore our Godly republic have proven futile over the past three decades. The time has come for Christian Constitutionalists to protect our liberties in a State like South Carolina by interposing the State's sovereign authority retained under the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Is this a true expression of Christianity?

[micatala]

Billy Graham. The billions and billions of poor and hungry supported by Christians worldwide. Hospitals founded by Christians serving anyone. Stuff like that.

Good for him. I agree CHristians of all sorts do a world of good all over the world. This is what we are called to do.

However, this has nothing to do with Christian theocracy, as Billy Graham is certainly not a government sponored agency and the good that he and others do does not require a theocracy. In fact, we are called to do good regardless of the governmental situation.

History is a good guide to world affairs if we get to hear the truth.

Agreed.

Of course the porn puryeyors may have a hard time coming on board but I'm sure will have their buddies to hang with. There are a lot of college professors out there.

Is there a point to this comment other than trying to be insulting? Do you have any evidence to back up what seems to be an outrageous assertion that college professors as a group are supportive of porn?

[The Persnickety Platypus]

There is a good reason why there are no more Christian theocracies left, you know.

The lessons learned from studying about ignorant people not knowing the words of the New Testament. I see we are heading back to the darkness.

Indeed, the Christian founders of modern nations seem to have found secular governments to be much more Biblically accurate than the repressive regimes of past centuries.

Why do so many Christians suddenly feel the need to go back on that? Fond of the days when pagan-hunting was a state sanctioned sport?

There has not, and never will be an ethical theocracy.

Capitalism and free trade is awesome. Also the Christians not shot or imprisoned in the "secular Muslim countries of uh, umm, uhhhh, errrr, - a need a little help here PP - uh, err, umm . . .

The current roster of secular/democratic Muslim states:

-Turkey
-Indonesia
-Bangladesh
-Mali
-Senegal

A small list, but growing slowly, as more and more Islamics are seeing the inherent social and economic faults in faith sanctioned governments. Even the likes of Syria and Saudi Arabia have become more secular recently, albiet slightly.

Was Middle Age Catholic Europe what you consider to be a model society? Puritan New England? The Middle East?

The ones where the populace could read and "study" ALL things.

Sorry, no such theocracies ever existed.

If you are looking for a society with a free flow and equal representation of ideas, then look no further. Secular America is the place to be.

[Wyvern]

As I recall, there was a similar yet diametrically opposed movement, whose goal was to establish a libertarian state. Anyone know what happened to it ? I can't remember their name off the top of my head, but I think it may have been the Free State Project.

Anyway, I don't see what these movements (both of them) hope to accomplish. Their states will still be subject to federal law, right ?

Nice hijack attempt John, but back to the issue at hand.

After reading the material at the web site it seems to me that this might be the same group of libertarians associated with that other project. They seem to have mostly libertarian political views to which they added a christian veneer, to hopefully raise more interest.

[Cathar1950]

The federal government can do nothing "respecting the establishment of religion." That gives any state the right to vote in a religion to guide its laws. Or to establish a religion as its laws. No one can do anything about that.

But you are suggesting we do something about it.
If a state voted in a religion then the state would be establishing a religion. In this case you would only have freedom of religion once then you change it and you no longer have it. I think the intent was that neither the state nor religion should establish religion. This seems to be implied in the state not establishing.
It is like asking to be free but not other. Is it still freedom or domination?

Billy Graham. The billions and billions of poor and hungry supported by Christians worldwide. Hospitals founded by Christians serving anyone. Stuff like that.

I am glad they are free to do that and I would like to see the government do likewise as well as corporate responsibility.

The lessons learned from studying about ignorant people not knowing the words of the New Testament. I see we are heading back to the darkness.

I would say that embracing Christianity at the exclusion of other ideas caused the dark-ages.
I think that is where you want us to be. It doesnt sound appealing to thinking humans.

Capitalism and free trade is awesome. Also the Christians not shot or imprisoned in the "secular Muslim countries of uh, umm, uhhhh, errrr, - a need a little help here PP - uh, err, umm . . .

Are you stammering or stuttering?
Do you think Jews, pagans, homosexuals, liberals, and perverts should be shot?
How is that relevant?

If secularists opened their closed minds and also, allow for the free exchange of ideas (and Christian music radio), then most of the world will be Born-Agian Christians in no time at all.

I dont think so except the entertainment value.
It has taken centuries to get Christians to open their minds to ideas. I dont see where your ideas are being actually stopped everywhere. Maybe some places but they are not the only ideas not allowed. I think you would like to limit secularist(how ever you want to see it)and just allow your thinking backed up with your interpretation and reading of the NT and the OT when it suits your needs.

I read the Free State Project sites.
I noticed the wanted a low population with about 20,000 and I bet resources and land.
Why not for everyone? Little pockets of like-minded people with land, resources and low population. I bet most would do all right. At least some one would get rich and therefore the "elect". It wouldnt be long before you would have it divide between those with wealth and power making rules for the ones that are with out. At least the Hebrew had Jubilee, which was never practiced.
They sound reactionary.
I say we all try it but not necessarily a theocracy. We could just study the Amish and the Hutterites and a few communes.

[McCulloch]

The federal government can do nothing "respecting the establishment of religion." That gives any state the right to vote in a religion to guide its laws. Or to establish a religion as its laws. No one can do anything about that.

A literalist reading of the first amendment of the US Constitution:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

If you are a strict literalist, this then does not mean that the Courts cannot rule respecting the establishment of religion or that the President has to steer clear of establishing religion or that the individual states are prohibited from establishing religion.

The good thing is that the US Judiciary system and experts in US constitutional law are not bone headed literalists. They have repeatedly ruled that there is and there should be a separation of organized religion and governments. All three branches. Federal, State and local levels. No?

[chachynga]

The federal government can do nothing "respecting the establishment of religion." That gives any state the right to vote in a religion to guide its laws. Or to establish a religion as its laws. No one can do anything about that.

John you appear to misread the first amendment, it says respecting the ESTABLISHMENT of religion, that means that NO state can give precedence of one religion over any other because that would be ESTABLISHING a state religion. This also means that no religious laws can be ESTABLISHED as state or federal law since this also would imply a state religion. I capitalized all versions of the word establish since you seem to ignore it. It doesn't mean religious establishments, it means the establishment of religion.

Also, secession is absolutely OK. America is rapidly approaching the course of human events for good states to seperate from whatever America has become.

Although economically this would be a good thing for a large part of the country, don't fool yourself, it's not gonna happen. It doesn't matter if its ok or not, Lincoln wouldn't allow it during the civil war and that set the precedent.

No it's no sect of a Christian religion.... Baptist or Methodist or Non-Denominational etc.

Not just any religion, Christians Only.

[Jose]

No it's no sect of a Christian religion.... Baptist or Methodist or Non-Denominational etc.

Not just any religion, Christians Only.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Do you mean that it's unconstitutional to establish one Christian sect in preference over another, and that the constitution says nothing about "religion" in general? You mean we can establish Buddhism as the National Religion? ...or Wicca?

[wuntext]

No it's no sect of a Christian religion.... Baptist or Methodist or Non-Denominational etc.

Not just any religion, Christians Only.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Do you mean that it's unconstitutional to establish one Christian sect in preference over another, and that the constitution says nothing about "religion" in general? You mean we can establish Buddhism as the National Religion? ...or Wicca?

Can someone help me out here. I can understand that your constitution forbids the formation of a state religion. But can those opposed to this idea tell me if they have any other reason(s) other than purely constitutional ones?

Wuntext... wun confused European.

[BeHereNow]

wuntext Can someone help me out here. I can understand that your constitution forbids the formation of a state religion. But can those opposed to this idea tell me if they have any other reason(s) other than purely constitutional ones?

The answer sounds too simple, so I must misunderstand your question.

Those of us living today oppose a state sanctioned religion for most or all of the same reasons the founding fathers did. If this concept did not exist in the constitution, I would feel a need to get an amendment passed so it would be present. Most citizens would agree with me. The proof of this is that there has been no substantial movement that I know of to have an amendment passed forming a state sanctioned religion.
If there have been any, they have not been even moderately successful.

Theocracies are terrible forms of government, for everyone except those who accept the state sponsered religion, and all that it might become.
Or so history demonstrated.

[wuntext]

Theocracies are terrible forms of government, for everyone except those who accept the state sponsered religion, and all that it might become.
Or so history demonstrated.

See, this is where my confusion stems from. A state religion does not automatically mean a religious state.
I live in a country where there is a state religion, where unelected religious leaders have automatic (but limited) input into government business, and religious education is mandatory in schools (and I'm glad it is). And yet I don't live in a theocracy, far from it, I live in one of the most secular societies in Europe.