NationStates Jolt Archive

http://christianexodus.org/index.php?module=htmlpages&func=display&pid=6

This group seems to think if it gathers enough christians in one place it could break away from the Union.



we all know what happen last time SC left...it wasn't pretty.

Pffffffffff... *explosion of laughter*.

Pffffffffff... *explosion of laughter*.



damn.....and I was hoping people would take the nutjobs seriously for at lest the first page....:D

Fundamentalism is wrong

Hilarious! Thank you for that.

Come out of her, my people

Come out of whom, you dirty fundies? :p

its funny how religious red necks can be so stupid :gundge:

hmmmm..:cool:

And they say only Muslims want to establish a theocracy.

yeah dude, red necks piss me off. and i gotta deal with em, cuz i live in feckin tennesee. :sniper:

It just seems like such a poorly thought out plan. "Like, yeah, we're totally going to send 100 people to each South Carolina country and take over their councils one at a time, and it's, like, going to free the state from government oppression".

I mean come on. The least you could do is stir up popular opinion first.

assuming they could actually pull it off, why would that result in a civil war?

assuming they could actually pull it off, why would that result in a civil war?



They hint it breaking away from the USA, which if you look at what happen last time...

Plus while they hint at breaking away (ie the reason they picked SC "reestablishing" a christian govenment etc) they never say it and simply claim they would defy laws passed in DC that they don't agree with.

Christian groups aren't the only secessionist groups in the US today.

http://www.secessionist.us/

Check the list to the right side there. All kinds of groups, even liberal left wing groups.

yeah dude, red necks piss me off. and i gotta deal with em, cuz i live in feckin tennesee. :sniper:
You aren't alone...

They hint it breaking away from the USA, which if you look at what happen last time...

would you favor bombing the bejeebus out of them if they left? would anyone sane do so?

focusing all the usual evil in one easily avoidable place does sound good, maybe we should send Scientology there and we can have an old fashion race war!

http://www.secessionist.us/

I figured there would be more...there isn't even a confederate cause anymore :(

Idiots

They hint it breaking away from the USA, which if you look at what happen last time...

Plus while they hint at breaking away (ie the reason they picked SC "reestablishing" a christian govenment etc) they never say it and simply claim they would defy laws passed in DC that they don't agree with.

Who'd fight to keep them?

Who'd fight to keep them?

I don't think it would be to keep them, as much as it would be to keep the real estate.

I hope they succeed and secede. An act of secession would be the strongest repudiation of the US Federal government's insane and megalomaniacal policies, much moreso than punching a hole in a piece of paper annually.

I hope they succeed and secede. An act of secession would be the strongest repudiation of the US Federal government's insane and megalomaniacal policies, much moreso than punching a hole in a piece of paper annually.

That piece of paper is the Supreme Law of the Land.

I hope they succeed and secede. An act of secession would be the strongest repudiation of the US Federal government's insane and megalomaniacal policies, much moreso than punching a hole in a piece of paper annually.

Secession is illegal.

lulz... Wow, seriously, and they actually think that enough people would move out of their homes and bring their families to South Carolina and overwhelm the elections somehow?

Better off raising about 7 million dollars, buy Sealand, and call it your own Christian country...

Secession is illegal.

He's been told that better.

Secession is illegal.

and any law that says so is unjust and therefore not a valid law at all.

That piece of paper is the Supreme Law of the Land.

This is in reference to

punching a hole in a piece of paper annually.

I wasn't aware that millions of people punch a hole in the Constitution annually. There probably isn't very much left of it, now, just like how politicians have ripped apart whatever 'protections' it gave us.

Secession is illegal.

So is sleeping naked in Minnesota. What about it?

and any law that says so is unjust and therefore not a valid law at all.

Why?

Why?

because governance can only be legitimate through the consent of the governed. if a section of the governed wish to secede, they plainly no longer consent. and therefore a rule that says they can't secede is a rule that can only be applied illegitimately.

Why?

Secession being illegal under threat of force is pretty much a hostage situation. If they don't want to be here we can't very well put a gun to their collective heads and make 'em.

Oh God, they want to take South Carolina away? But I love that state, it has Charleston and Myrtle Beach! Not only that it borders my state! They must be stopped!

Secession being illegal under threat of force is pretty much a hostage situation. If they don't want to be here we can't very well put a gun to their collective heads and make 'em.

Oh I don't know. Britain did their best to keep us as a colony and the Confederates did their level best to split from the Union.

Oh I don't know. Britain did their best to keep us as a colony and the Confederates did their level best to split from the Union.

the word "justly" was implied. unless you think khadgar doesn't believe that hostage situations happen from time to time, of course...

Heh. South Carolina. Surrounded on all but one side by the US. Great idea. :p

At least they had the wherewithall to pick a coastal state. If they had picked Kansas, I would have laughed myself into a coma. :D

http://christianexodus.org/index.php?module=htmlpages&func=display&pid=6

This group seems to think if it gathers enough christians in one place it could break away from the Union.



we all know what happen last time SC left...it wasn't pretty.

They'd have a better chance of gathering enough money in one place and buying some land off of another nation with a loose secession policy.

But it would be stupid of them to try to actually leave the US, even if they were allowed. Neglect these days would be anything but salutary. They should just go for a big gated community and make an effort to maintain good relations with their neighbors. But either way, they're still just a freaky cult.

would you favor bombing the bejeebus out of them if they left? would anyone sane do so?

In medical terms, it's one way of removing the infection. Burning it out.

Oh I don't know. Britain did their best to keep us as a colony and the Confederates did their level best to split from the Union.

Which just goes to show the folly of trying to hold onto people that want to go. Britain defeated the US in almost every major battle. In terms of military power and success, it wasn't even a contest. England just decided that the cost of fighting to maintain sovereignty in the US wasn't worth it when most of what they wanted from the colonies (money) could be more easily acquired through trade. And until WWII it was pretty obvious that Britain had little to gain by ruling the US.

As for the civil war, yes the North won, and the South did not manage to secede, so it at first glance it looks like military force conquered a population that wanted to be free. But in reality reconstruction had more to do with the dirty deals that politicians made to bribe the south back into the union. Slavery had ended, but it wasn't until the 1960's that blacks gained equal rights under the law. The defeat of the South was only skin deep. If the Union had stuck to the principles on which the Civil War was ostensibly fought, the Yankees would have had a an insurgency longer and as bloody as the war itself.

In medical terms, it's one way of removing the infection. Burning it out.

If an infected toe has already amputated itself, there's no need to sterilize it.

I want to wish them luck. I think all the hardcore Christians should move there. That would leave the rest of us free of the fundamentalist crap and we could get back to things like teaching real scientific theories in school. Maybe have sex ed programs that work. All these fun things that they have been fighting for so long.

If an infected toe has already amputated itself, there's no need to sterilize it.

Yeah, but the toe's carrying contagious diseases. You incinerate stuff like that to keep it from spreading.

Additionally, South Carolina possesses a rich history of standing up for her rights.
How did that work out last time?
Actually, the whole idea doesn't seem that crazy. If it works, then eventually there will be only one state that works that way. If it doesn't it will serve as an example to the rest.

Why don't we give them some land that nobody wants like South Dakota. Just give some compensation to the 35 farmers who live there. Then they can have their crazy country and we can be without them in our lives.

(sorry to any who were offended who live in SD)

would you favor bombing the bejeebus out of them if they left? would anyone sane do so?

You mean bombing the Jesus out of them, right? =D I'm pretty sane. I'd do it.

I didn't read past the first page because I HAD to reply to this. Someone else probably already said the same thing, but I don't care. =D

You mean bombing the Jesus out of them, right? =D I'm pretty sane. I'd do it.

I didn't read past the first page because I HAD to reply to this. Someone else probably already said the same thing, but I don't care. =D

While I do not condone carpet bombing, I must admit the idea of bombing the Jesus out of Christian Fundamentalists is quite amusing.

yeah dude, red necks piss me off. and i gotta deal with em, cuz i live in feckin tennesee. :sniper:

As a child their bigotry and illogical enmity with me baptised me in the fires of hatred. Now everyone hates me because I want to put racists in concentration camps.

Oh great, not South Carolina again.

An easy fix, just move all of the illegal immigrants into South Carolina, with no one understanding each other, it will be impossible for them to get anything done! :D

"... God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ... And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

~ Thomas Jefferson, Nov. 13, 1787

Which just goes to show the folly of trying to hold onto people that want to go. Britain defeated the US in almost every major battle. In terms of military power and success, it wasn't even a contest. England just decided that the cost of fighting to maintain sovereignty in the US wasn't worth it when most of what they wanted from the colonies (money) could be more easily acquired through trade. And until WWII it was pretty obvious that Britain had little to gain by ruling the US.

To a point I agree with you. The Brits did take control of every major city in the Colonies at the time. However, they were forced out of Philadelphia after losing a couple of key battles and then had to retreat from the South up towards Yorktown where Cornwallis Surrendered. Let us also not forget the French coming in in 1778 after the British defeat at Saratoga. Spain joined the French as well (but not the United States) and then the Armed Neutrality that the rest of Europe formed against GB. GB was politically isolated which also helped in freeing the colonies.

As for the civil war, yes the North won, and the South did not manage to secede, so it at first glance it looks like military force conquered a population that wanted to be free. But in reality reconstruction had more to do with the dirty deals that politicians made to bribe the south back into the union. Slavery had ended, but it wasn't until the 1960's that blacks gained equal rights under the law. The defeat of the South was only skin deep. If the Union had stuck to the principles on which the Civil War was ostensibly fought, the Yankees would have had a an insurgency longer and as bloody as the war itself.

Except that the South was thoroughly trashed by Sherman and Grant. This was why there was not much of an insurgency.

I love how these Christian exodus nutjobs say that they picked South Carolina because it has values that reflect theirs.

You ever been to South Carolina? Sure they don't sell alcohol on Sunday and other useless nonsense, but I don't think there's a higher concentration of 'Gentlemens Clubs' anywhere else outside of maybe Las Vegas.

So I guess Titty-bars reflect good christian values.

we all know what happen last time SC left...it wasn't pretty.
It had friends to join it on its exodus. Assuming that enough of these will gather in one place, I highly doubt there will be enough in other states for that to happen again.

I don't know what would happen if they manage to get secession legislated, but I don't see it working out.

I predict epic failure on their part.

not bloody likely any time soon. but i would certainly support california and texas' succession, and alaska's, in spirit, though not with my body and life.

america DOES need to be broken up into bioregeonal provences.

new mexico, arizona and southern california should be part of mexico.
northern california and the rest of the pacific states (and possibly their immediately neighboring states and provences) should be an indipendent country.

and i don't think todays eastern seabord would have the resources to win against them if they did. hell if california and texas allied with each other they could kick d.c.'s butt to the moon.

but if its a bunch of right wing loonies what to defect that's alright with me too. they can take their useless fanatacsm to some other planet where the'd feel more at home with their fanatasies.

=^^=
.../\...

Uh, no.

You mean bombing the Jesus out of them, right? =D I'm pretty sane. I'd do it.

yeah, invading their country, killing their leaders, and converting them to the john frum cargo cult does sound pretty good. but if they still want to be independent after that, well, why not let them?

[Evil Fascist Mode]
Oh, good. They'll gather all in one place for me...so much more convenient that...like lambs walking straight into the slaughterhouse...
[/evil fascist mode]

On a more serious note, this isn't really even newsworthy. There is no organization with anywhere near the numbers necessary for a true attempt at secession. Furthermore, in order to truly attempt it one would have to have at least some of the military on their side as well to give them a solid chance at staying seceded. Otherwise we'd have a horrible bloodbath on our hands.

On a more serious note, this isn't really even newsworthy. There is no organization with anywhere near the numbers necessary for a true attempt at secession.

which reminds me, whatever happened to the free state project? haven't we passed their deadline for when they needed 20,000 'liberty loving americans' to join up?

Furthermore, in order to truly attempt it one would have to have at least some of the military on their side as well to give them a solid chance at staying seceded. Otherwise we'd have a horrible bloodbath on our hands.

only if we assume the us is an oppressive hellhole that ought be abolished. so welcome to the club, i guess.

which reminds me, whatever happened to the free state project? haven't we passed their deadline for when they needed 20,000 'liberty loving americans' to join up?

Having never heard of that project, I'm willing to bet it failed miserably.


only if we assume the us is an oppressive hellhole that ought be abolished. so welcome to the club, i guess.
It's far from that. But if a state seceded, we would have a bloodbath because those seceding would fight back, and since none of our citizens have ever really had the need to figure out how to fight a guerrilla war, we'd have thousands of citizens die before they started to fight back very well.

If SC seceded, it would be taking federal property with it, and as such would be theft or a declaration of war, depending on how you look at it.

And they say only Muslims want to establish a theocracy.

no we want to establish a society based on the prophets umma, where everything is governed by islamic beliefs. not islamic priests(theres a difference trust me!)

It's far from that. But if a state seceded, we would have a bloodbath because those seceding would fight back

fight back from what? why is there fighting?

If SC seceded, it would be taking federal property with it, and as such would be theft or a declaration of war, depending on how you look at it.

or they could, you know, work out an agreement over those things. but that's crazy talk...

fight back from what? why is there fighting?

As much as we might like for there to be a peaceful solution, no President will ever allow a state to secede. S/he will follow Lincoln's precedent and fight to preserve the union.

As much as we might like for there to be a peaceful solution, no President will ever allow a state to secede. S/he will follow Lincoln's precedent and fight to preserve the union.

why?

So a fundamentalist Christian group wants to rob a state and turn it into their little pet dystopia.

1- Color me unsurprised.

2- Even The Handmaid's Tale described the kind of crap that happens, so I don't even need to bring out my downloaded copy of Nineteen Eighty Four.

3- They're utter morons in pursuing that idea, and even BIGGER morons if they believe it will work.

I love how these Christian exodus nutjobs say that they picked South Carolina because it has values that reflect theirs.

You ever been to South Carolina? Sure they don't sell alcohol on Sunday and other useless nonsense, but I don't think there's a higher concentration of 'Gentlemens Clubs' anywhere else outside of maybe Las Vegas.

So I guess Titty-bars reflect good christian values.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy

no we want to establish a society based on the prophets umma, where everything is governed by islamic beliefs. not islamic priests(theres a difference trust me!)

I don't give a fuck, any theocracy, Christian, Muslim or otherwise, is wrong, period, end of story, moving on to something that's actually debatable.

Go right ahead -- this time instead of 24 vs 11 it'll be 49 vs 1.

its funny how religious red necks can be so stupid :gundge:
GAH, THE IRONING!

why?

Love of power.

or they could, you know, work out an agreement over those things. but that's crazy talk...

The funny thing is that in the Scotland thread no one is talking about invading and subjugating Scotland. Apparently you only get to secede if you're not American.

The funny thing is that in the Scotland thread no one is talking about invading and subjugating Scotland. Apparently you only get to secede if you're not American.

It shows how much the American Revolution has de facto been rejected.

They hint it breaking away from the USA, which if you look at what happen last time...

Plus while they hint at breaking away (ie the reason they picked SC "reestablishing" a christian govenment etc) they never say it and simply claim they would defy laws passed in DC that they don't agree with.

Reestablish a Christian government? I don't know what these people are thinking, in my opinion the current government is more Christian then it ever was in the past.

The funny thing is that in the Scotland thread no one is talking about invading and subjugating Scotland. Apparently you only get to secede if you're not American.

jeebus, you are right. apparently everyone thinks of the US as an evil empire of doom or something - and likes it that way. fucking crazy.

The funny thing is that in the Scotland thread no one is talking about invading and subjugating Scotland. Apparently you only get to secede if you're not American.

That's because Scotland had all ready been invaded and subjugated once.

"FREEDOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!!!"

:D

Reestablish a Christian government? I don't know what these people are thinking, in my opinion the current government is more Christian then it ever was in the past.

The Bush Administration are not Christians. They do not worship God, they worship the golden calf of democracy.

The Bush Administration are not Christians. They do not worship God, they worship the golden calf of democracy.

really?

The Bush Administration are not Christians. They do not worship God, they worship the golden calf of democracy.

I am not sure where to begin with this post. I have to assume you are joking though I haven't read much of the rest of the thread....


*gives incredulous look*

That piece of paper is the Supreme Law of the Land.

The framers of the constitution roundly supported the right of secession and expressed so in the wording of the Constitution.

or they could, you know, work out an agreement over those things. but that's crazy talk...

Or it could be acknowledged that "federal property" does not exist in a state that does not consent to federal governance.

The framers of the constitution roundly supported the right of secession and expressed so in the wording of the Constitution.

I must have missed that article or amendment. care to show proof?

I am not sure where to begin with this post. I have to assume you are joking though I haven't read much of the rest of the thread....


*gives incredulous look*

No, he's not joking. And I agree with him.

I must have missed that article or amendment. care to show proof?

Actually it is the fact that the founding fathers voted down a "perpetual union" clause and the lack of any expressed prohibition of secession in the constitution that should constitute proof, especially when considering the Tenth.

EDIT:

Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world

Abraham Lincoln - 1847

No, he's not joking. And I agree with him.

And you know this how?

Actually it is the fact that the founding fathers voted down a "perpetual union" clause and the lack of any expressed prohibition of secession in the constitution that should constitute proof, especially when considering the Tenth.

How does the 10th prove your argument?

No, he's not joking. And I agree with him.

Bush and his supporters haven't made this more of a government dominated by religion? I can't follow this reasoning. I would think the Founding Fathers would be horrified to see the power that religion has in political affairs in these "modern" times.

Unless you are meaning that democracy is likened to worshipping to a golden calf? To which I have no response but an eyeroll to.

EDIT:

Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world

Abraham Lincoln - 1847

You do realize, he is talking about overthrowing the United States. Something that the Confederates did not do. And in fact, we do still have that right to rise up and overthrow the government. Its been done before (see TN county after World War II)

How does the 10th prove your argument?

It states that the federal government is limited to the powers stated in the constitution, and since the constitution calls out no prohibition to secession, the federal government is given no power to stop it.

You do realize, he is talking about overthrowing the United States. Something that the Confederates did not do. And in fact, we do still have that right to rise up and overthrow the government. Its been done before (see TN county after World War II)

I realize that you don't make sense.

Oh, my kingdom to be a tank commander in *that* war.

It states that the federal government is limited to the powers stated in the constitution, and since the constitution calls out no prohibition to secession, the federal government is given no power to stop it.

And I disagree. The fact that the states ratified the Constitution and agreed to abide by them means they cannot secede. The only state that could theoretically secede was Texas.

And I disagree. The fact that the states ratified the Constitution and agreed to abide by them means they cannot secede. The only state that could theoretically secede was Texas.

What?

They agreed to a union that was not perpetual and didn't forbid secession.

I realize that you don't make sense.

So you are unaware that a local population overthrew their local government by force of arms in Tennessee?

The fact that the states ratified the Constitution and agreed to abide by them means they cannot secede.

how?

So you are unaware that a local population overthrew their local government by force of arms in Tennessee?

No, I am unaware what point you are making.

The constitution doesn't make provision for secession, but it does make provision for national defense. Secession is an attack, just like a revolution is an attack.

The fact of the matter is that if a group of people wants to take land from a nation and form a new one of their own, they must win a war to do so, because the sovereign nation that they are seceding from is under no obligation to permit them. Ditto if those people want to cast off their government and form a new one. Thats why the world has revolutions and civil wars.

If the christianists in the OP can defend their claim to Christianistan, then good for them, but I'd be happy to have the privilege to pull a trigger or push a button to stop them.

Secession is an attack

No it is not.

No, I am unaware what point you are making.

Proving what Abraham Lincoln said:

Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world

Abraham Lincoln - 1847

The people of the TN county I was referring to did exactly that. They rose up against existing government and removed it. The Confederate States did not shake off the existing government.

The people of the TN county I was referring to did exactly that. They rose up against existing government and removed it. The Confederate States did not shake off the existing government.

Oh, I see, so the right is only valid through the violent expression of the right?

The CSA did not have the right only because they couldn't enforce the right?

And I disagree. The fact that the states ratified the Constitution and agreed to abide by them means they cannot secede. The only state that could theoretically secede was Texas.

But one cannot hand over one's will to another person, even if they want to; this is part of the concept of inalienable rights. And an inalienable right to one's will necessarily includes the right to disassociation.

Oh, I see, so the right is only valid through the violent expression of the right?

The CSA did not have the right only because they couldn't enforce the right?

You stated the quote. A quote that I put into proper context. Now are you backtracking?

The answer to your question is yes. Shall we look at history? Let us go back 94 years prior to the Constitution in a thing that we call the Revolutionary War. We fought a war of secession from the British Empire. We attempted this through force of arms after all attempts at diplomacy failed. We gained our independence through force of arms and the rest is history. Now let us fast foward to 1860! Lincoln gets elected President and South Carolina seceded from the Union. Over the course of the next year, the Southern States seceded and this thing called a civil war started when Fort Sumter was fired upon.

In order to gain independence, either the nation that the split from lets them go or the seceding state has to gain it by force of arms. In the case of the United States, it would more than likely be through force of arms.

No it is not.

If it is to be meaningful it is.

People can 'secede' until the cows come home by refusing to pay their taxes and follow the laws, and then go to jail, but when they shoot the first policeman, then the real world comes to visit.

Take Ed and Elaine Brown, former residents of New Hampshire.

But one cannot hand over one's will to another person, even if they want to; this is part of the concept of inalienable rights. And an inalienable right to one's will necessarily includes the right to disassociation.

Funny...the states felt differently. They handed over their soveriegnty to a central government. Twice. One a very weak one and the other is still running today.

You stated the quote. A quote that I put into proper context. Now are you backtracking?

The answer to your question is yes. Shall we look at history? Let us go back 94 years prior to the Constitution in a thing that we call the Revolutionary War. We fought a war of secession from the British Empire. We attempted this through force of arms after all attempts at diplomacy failed. We gained our independence through force of arms and the rest is history. Now let us fast foward to 1860! Lincoln gets elected President and South Carolina seceded from the Union. Over the course of the next year, the Southern States seceded and this thing called a civil war started when Fort Sumter was fired upon.

In order to gain independence, either the nation that the split from lets them go or the seceding state has to gain it by force of arms. In the case of the United States, it would more than likely be through force of arms.

You can't get your head around the issue, and I am dropping this.

If it is to be meaningful it is.

People can 'secede' until the cows come home by refusing to pay their taxes and follow the laws, and then go to jail, but when they shoot the first policeman, then the real world comes to visit.

Take Ed and Elaine Brown, former residents of New Hampshire.

Secession is withdrawal.

Violence follows when the government forbids the withdrawal.

You can't get your head around the issue, and I am dropping this.

I see logical arguments do not belong here.

I see logical arguments do not belong here.

That much is plain.

My honest first response is "Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out..."

Funny...the states felt differently. They handed over their soveriegnty to a central government. Twice. One a very weak one and the other is still running today.

Do you not understand the concept of alienable vs. inalienable? Inalienable means you cannot give it away, even if you want to. As such, any transfer of these rights is invalid. And even if a large amount of the state agreed to do so, this ignores the fact that many people, such as anti-Federalists, did not agree to hand over their rights.

Secession is withdrawal.

Violence follows when the government forbids the withdrawal.

... which it does as a matter of course...

Secession is not a one-way street, it provokes a response from the people you're trying to secede from.

The default position is that the government has authority, when people take the extraordinary and revolutionary step of trying to destroy that authority, then there is a predictable reaction that' can't be ignored or factored out of any discussion of the topic.

Secession is also not merely 'withdrawl,' withdrawing from the country means leaving and going elsewhere. Secession is expropriation of land and privileges. A person is free not to obey the laws - he can go to prison in accordance with his wishes, but he is not free to presume that he can disobey the laws with impunity. If he wants those special rights, he has to fight for them.

... which it does as a matter of course...

except when it doesn't. since peaceable secession is possible in principle and happens in practice, you're going to need something else. we'd prefer an ethical argument that justifies literally forcing people to remain under a government they collectively do not consent to. go!

... which it does as a matter of course...

Secession is not a one-way street, it provokes a response from the people you're trying to secede from.

This begs the question.

The questions of the legitimacy of the secession and the legitimacy of the response address the same issue.

Secession is also not merely 'withdrawl,' withdrawing from the country means leaving and going elsewhere. Secession is expropriation of land and privileges. A person is free not to obey the laws - he can go to prison in accordance with his wishes, but he is not free to presume that he can disobey the laws with impunity. If he wants those special rights, he has to fight for them.

No, seriously, you don't understand the issue.

really?

Their perverse version of "democracy," anyway. I.e., what they shoved down Iraqis' throats.

Do you not understand the concept of alienable vs. inalienable?

Yes I understand the difference. However, no state has the inalienablle right to secede.

Inalienable means you cannot give it away, even if you want to. As such, any transfer of these rights is invalid. And even if a large amount of the state agreed to do so, this ignores the fact that many people, such as anti-Federalists, did not agree to hand over their rights.

Indeed however the anti-federalists failed to persuade enough people in each state to vote against the Constitution. Thus, the states handed over power to a stronger central government in 1789 and George Washington became our first President under the Constitution of the United States.

No, seriously, you don't understand the issue.

So anyone who disagrees with you does not understand the issue?

How did that work out last time?
Actually, the whole idea doesn't seem that crazy. If it works, then eventually there will be only one state that works that way. If it doesn't it will serve as an example to the rest.

That sounds more like a province in an empire rather than a state.

Also, I support the creation of the People's Republic of Vermont.

That sounds more like a province in an empire rather than a state.

Also, I support the creation of the People's Republic of Vermont.

ACtually...Vermont used to be called the Republic of Vermont before it decided to join the Union.

This thread is silly. The likelyhood of SC secedeing from the Union is about on par with the likelyhood of the Indians reclaiming Manhattan.

would you favor bombing the bejeebus out of them if they left? would anyone sane do so?

after gathering all the fundamentalist in one place? actually.....:mp5:

This thread is silly. The likelyhood of SC secedeing from the Union is about on par with the likelyhood of the Indians reclaiming Manhattan.

I'd be fine with that. Filthy Manhattaners.

(see previous Parenthesis)

This thread is silly. The likelyhood of SC secedeing from the Union is about on par with the likelyhood of the Indians reclaiming Manhattan.

*Zany response*

I can easily see a scenario in which a person from India would want their Manhattan cocktail back.

*Zany response*

I can easily see a scenario in which a person from India would want their Manhattan cocktail back.

LOL!!

Yes I understand the difference. However, no state has the inalienablle right to secede.



Indeed however the anti-federalists failed to persuade enough people in each state to vote against the Constitution. Thus, the states handed over power to a stronger central government in 1789 and George Washington became our first President under the Constitution of the United States.

Back then, Washington DC was just "DC" and the state of Washington was just "the state of".

LOL!!

It was THAT funny? o_O

http://christianexodus.org/index.php?module=htmlpages&func=display&pid=6

This group seems to think if it gathers enough christians in one place it could break away from the Union.



we all know what happen last time SC left...it wasn't pretty.

No. If they all want to exodus, then let them go where Moses was leading their spiritual ancestors.

Back then, Washington DC was just "DC" and the state of Washington was just "the state of".

Back when the Constitution was ratified, the State of Washington did not exist :D

Back when the Constitution was ratified, the State of Washington did not exist :D

I know that, but joke takes precedence over fact. :p

would you favor bombing the bejeebus out of them if they left? would anyone sane do so?

Would anyone sane NOT wish to bomb them? They're rednecks.

I live in Atlanta, GA, and before here I've lved on the Gulf Coast all my life. I know rednecks.

So anyone who disagrees with you does not understand the issue?

not necessarily. you, however, plainly do not.

not necessarily. you, however, plainly do not.

Then why is it that the points I have brought up were not addressed but resorted to the comments that were just made?

Then why is it that the points I have brought up were not addressed but resorted to the comments that were just made?

your point was no point at all - it was self-contradictory

Am I the only one who likes this idea?

If all the crazy Christian fundamentalists want one state to live out their ridiculous lifestyles and pass their assinine laws, by all means give it to them. I would love it if America gave all these freaks an autonomous state. You would get 1 million or so assholes away from this nation, and they'd stop bitching at us cause they could just go to South Carolina.

I think it's great. Let them have SC! (though we'd have to create a South Virginia or something because my OCD nature would want there to still be 50 states, 49 is such an ugly number).

Am I the only one who likes this idea?

If all the crazy Christian fundamentalists want one state to live out their ridiculous lifestyles and pass their assinine laws, by all means give it to them. I would love it if America gave all these freaks an autonomous state. You would get 1 million or so assholes away from this nation, and they'd stop bitching at us cause they could just go to South Carolina.

I think it's great. Let them have SC! (though we'd have to create a South Virginia or something because my OCD nature would want there to still be 50 states, 49 is such an ugly number).

If they don't want to live under the Constitution and Federal government and all the other baggage the rest of us do, they don't want to be American.

If they don't want to be American, let them buy an island and live there, governing however the hell they want to, and receiving no funds from the American government. (The benefit -- they won't have to pay taxes either.)

yeah dude, red necks piss me off. and i gotta deal with em, cuz i live in feckin tennesee. :sniper:

Now you know what us Mac users and gay people have to put up with - be surrounded people those whose IQ are a few notches below room temperature.

Yes I understand the difference. However, no state has the inalienablle right to secede.

No, everyone has the right to disassociation, from governments just the same as from other people. (Governments, after all, are not a seperate entity but just a group of people.) To say that one does not have the right to disassociate is no less than to say that one does not have a right to their own will. And, indeed, no tyranny is impermissible if one has no right to secede, as the government may pass whatever law it wishes and force people to obey. There would be no inalienable rights under a secession-less system.

Indeed however the anti-federalists failed to persuade enough people in each state to vote against the Constitution. Thus, the states handed over power to a stronger central government in 1789 and George Washington became our first President under the Constitution of the United States.

Yes, the majority in each state did hand over power. So what? Voting and elections are absolutely meaningless, as they are nothing but an institutionalized argumentum ad populum fallacy. Thus, anti-Federalists were subjugated to laws in which they did not believe, under the rule of a political elite riding upon a deceived majority that they could use as a bludgeon to force others to submit. And so it has been from George Washington enforcing an excise tax no different from King George III's, all to enrich government debt speculators and crippling small distillers to help big manufacturers, to George Bush's invasion of Iraq. If there is any document worth seceding against, it is the Constitution of the United States.

No. If they all want to exodus, then let them go where Moses was leading their spiritual ancestors.

Miami?

[/tasteless Jewish joke]


Seriously, these jokers have about as much chance of breaking away from the United States as I have of becoming a Chief Justice.

Miami?

[/tasteless Jewish joke]


Seriously, these jokers have about as much chance of breaking away from the United States as I have of becoming a Chief Justice.

*Fake Oblivious*

What chance DO you have of becoming a chief justice? o_O

Yeah, but do we realy want them in our country.:confused:

'Sides they'd lose desperatley in a war. :mp5:

So anyone who disagrees with you does not understand the issue?

No, anyone who believes that secession is an aggression against the existing government does not understand the issue.

I'm considering donating to their site, but only if they truly promise to leave -- permanently. I would be totally against trying to force SC back into the Union. Instead, I think it would be a good place for that border wall idea some conservatives seem so fond of.

Secession's illegality was decided by the Civil War, and an armed and serious attempt to break away from the Union is going to result in an appropriate response by the federal government.

Secession's illegality was decided by the Civil War

no, it really really wasn't. and, in fact, could not have been. if might makes right, then the issue is not settled in the slightest, as might might go the other way next time, and thus can never settle anything at all ever. and if might doesn't make right, then the civil war is irrelevant.

an armed and serious attempt to break away from the Union is going to result in an appropriate response by the federal government.

in what way would any response other than wishing them well be appropriate at all?

no, it really really wasn't. and, in fact, could not have been. if might makes right, then the issue is not settled in the slightest, as might might go the other way next time, and thus can never settle anything at all ever. and if might doesn't make right, then the civil war is irrelevant.

The reason the Civil War was fought was to perserve the union. The north won, ergo the south can not break off. The US is a UNITED states, not a confederacy. You can not leave once a state is incorperated.

Unless, of course, we hold another Consitiutional Convention.

Fundamentalism is wrong

Right. Since 'fundamentalists' see the world in black and white, wrong and right, let's attack them from a similarly fundamentalist point of view.

BTW, I'm all for a civil war. Just not a "Christians vs. Everyone Else" one. Maybe a "Government vs. Everybody They Fuck Up The Ass Everyday" war.

The north won, ergo the south can not break off.

i like how you responded to my argument that explicitly destroyed this argument, and countered by merely repeating the argument. let's try this again.

if might makes right, then they can in principle break off.
if might doesn't make right, then the north winning is irrelevant to the question and the argument from self determination demonstrates they can in principle break off.
therefore whether or not might makes right, secession is allowed.

The only state that could theoretically secede was Texas.

You are aware that the only special "privilege" that Texas has is preapproval from Congress to split into 5 states, right?

You are aware that the only special "privilege" that Texas has is preapproval from Congress to split into 5 states, right?

Yep! And I will retract my statement about their ability to secede till I research that some more.

Yep! And I will retract my statement about their ability to secede till I research that some more.

If one state is allowed to secede, all states should be allowed to secede. There is absolutely nothing in either the treaty of annexation between Texas and the US that gives them any special dispensation other than the preapproval for splitting into 5 states. I get seriously annoyed by Texans claiming they're the only state allowed to fly their flag on equal height with the US flag, especially when many places here (the state police included) do it.

Fundamentalism is wrong

Or, perhaps more accurately,
fundamentalism is fundamentally incorrect.
*nods*

*Fake Oblivious*

What chance DO you have of becoming a chief justice? o_O

Let's see... carry the three... divide by the sum total of human knowledge in binary...

Screw it. Let's just assume it's just slightly better than OJ's chances.

BTW, I'm all for a civil war. Just not a "Christians vs. Everyone Else" one. Maybe a "Government vs. Everybody They Fuck Up The Ass Everyday" war.

Sounds good to me.

OFF-TOPIC POST. I'm dragging this fella outside.

How did that work out last time?
Actually, the whole idea doesn't seem that crazy. If it works, then eventually there will be only one state that works that way. If it doesn't it will serve as an example to the rest.That sounds more like a province in an empire rather than a state.

Also, I support the creation of the People's Republic of Vermont.

I am replying to this inscrutable comment (joke?) only to draw your attention to the thread you started two days earlier.

Since ceasing to post to your own thread, you made six posts to different threads, lastly this one. In your own words:

[Warning to all posters, this is from a different thread]
I just thought this [thread]was needed given the libertarian slime infesting these forums.

I'm now going to go post to that thread, the one you started with a claim to be "an authoritarian." I invite you to continue this there, if only to post a simple retraction.

I won't post to this thread again, since it does not interest me and I haven't even wred the OP.

Lol, let them leave and breed in their own stupidity.

except when it doesn't. since peaceable secession is possible in principle and happens in practice, you're going to need something else. we'd prefer an ethical argument that justifies literally forcing people to remain under a government they collectively do not consent to. go!

Don't hold your breath, FS.