One set of Founders. One Constitution. Two Nations.

[me b zola]

Poll question: One set of Founders. One Constitution. Two Nations.

So I was reading one more mind-numbing article in another thread
titled:

"Concerned Christians" to rally against "myth" of church/state
separation

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

In that thread I finally share a thought that I have had for a
little while. Our nation should officially split into the two
nations that read our Constitution, and indeed our entire history,
in two completly opposing interpretations:

Someitmes I think that we need to become two nations. People get to
chose which "version" of the Constitution that they believe to be
true and then become a member of that nation. One nation, the Nation
of Zealots, can read all of the religion that they want to into the
founders & the Constitution. They can elect their government to
reflect their "values" and beliefs. They can amend their
Constitution to their zealot's hearts content. Legalized
discrimination, outlawed abortions,prayer in school? Hell, how about
a state sponsered religion??It's their country, let it reflect their
"values".

The rest of us will get to live in the Nation of the Rational, that
once and for all, respects the rule of law and the most widely
accepted belief that we are indeed a secular nation in which a
person is free to worship as they see fit, but their religion has no
place in governance. So help me I don't even want to hear about what
church any politician belongs to and how many times a day he prays.
No more of this insane "faith based initiatives" sucking tax dollars
out of our treasury with the hope that it will be meeting the social
service needs of our citizens because the pukes have gutted social
programs--when probably it's worst quality is that it serves as
illegal campaign contributions to repugs--but that is neither here
nor there, and I digress.

Both nations will be an exact replica of this one that has become
two.

Make people consider what it is they are really advocating, and then
not challange the government to which they have chosen to best
represent them. If you chose to live in the Nation of Zealotry, you
cannot demand a secular government. If you chose the Nation of the
Rational, you may NOT bring religion--ONCE AND FOR ALL--into
government. Period. Honnestly, I am more & more thinking that we
should do this--it may be the only way to preserve the Constitution
and this nation(s).

I really think that if people were forced to consider the
consequences of all that they are attempting to impose upon us, they
might not want to live in their "liberal-free" utopia. Who would
they have to scapegoat for all of societies problems? When tithing
instead of taxes doesn't take care of the most basic needs, what
will they do? I believe that of the small percentage of Americans
who would chose the Nation of Zealotry, most would want to return to
the Nation of the Rational within 5 years. Upon petitioning the
Nation of the Rational for return of their citizenship, they must
sign a proclamation that although they are free to worship as they
like, they will never again attempt to interject religion in
government. Never.

So what do you think? Are there really two opposing interpretations
of the Constitution and of the Founders intentions? If you believe that
there are, would you support creating twin nations out of our
current one that is split?



Play nice. Discussion is a good thing :)

[me b zola]

1. Well, does that mean that you would like more explanation?

Or did you just get out of bed on the right side? :P

[paparush]

2. Its like the King James Bible ~~Properly Interpretted~~

I had a brief conversation w/ an intense christian who kept on and on about how the Bible must be 'properly' interpretted. I finally just threw up may hands and walked away....for fear that I might have snapped and choked the sh*t out of him....

[GOPFighter]

3. My only problem is, I don't want...

...the Nation of Zealots anywhere near the Nation of the Rational. They would either invade us or after five years we'd have to build a wall to keep their starving masses from crossing into our country.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

5. why, because we have science and health, while disease,

hunger and equipment falling apart is destroying their lifestyles? Heck, send them back and insist they pray over their machines, their sick and their failing society. That ought to do it.

[me b zola]

6. At the most, they would be 30% of who we are now

And yes, if they didn't wise up quickly and return to sanity they would have great humanitarian crisises. The thing is, right now they are dragging us all there now. Their zealotry has helped to install those who hate government and have done everything in their power to shift ALL of the resources to those who are uber wealthy, further away from the middle class and the poor.

The zealots are doing the dirty work of the republicans in dismantling public education, science, and are replacing it with anti-intellectualism and censurship. The pubs would not have been so successful creating drastic & alaming changes to our country if it were not for the zealots receiving mass e-mails and answering the call to arms everytime there is a created "cultural divide". Poverty is up, wages are down. They are trying to kill social security, they've screwed up medicare---and they've only just begun. Wait, there will be plenty more starving people in the streets because they are dimantling all social services replacing it with "faith based initiatives" which has no obligation to provide services nor government oversight to see that people's needs are being met. If things stay they way they are, those starving people won't have to cross a border to get "here", we are here now.

[More Than A Feeling]

4. I wouldn't want either.

I have no problem with government based on values, with the caveat that all it does must be constitutional. I want to see my values reflected in government, which is to say I want a government that preserves the environment, succors the poor, goes to war only in defense and as a last resort, and represents all its citizens, not just those with the most money.

These values are found in my religion, and in many other religions. So, its not a question of values, per se, but of whose values are dominant.

I would not want to see politicians forbidden from discussing their religion, or offering legislation based on their religious values. That strikes me as a reverse-religion test, which would be unconstitutional.

Where religious values go wrong is when they attempt to undermine official church-state separation, such as having God in the pledge, on the money, or as a big slab of ten commandments granite in a public courthouse.

[me b zola]

9. We're in closer agreement than you may know

...or maybe not, let's give her a go.

Of course government is based on values, and we all have them and it defines how we live our lives. The thing is, I believe that almost universally, people share the same values regardless of what religion they practice or if they believe in a creator or not.

We want (need) safety & security--that we are physically safe from threats, that we have the ability to provide for our families, that we have safe shelter, that we have access to medical care, that our social security (we've had to come to accept that our pensions are now in the bonus packages of CEO's) will be there when we get old so that we have a little something to try to get by on. We all value a safe/healthy enviroment so that we may live a long, healthy life.

We all value family--there are many forms of family but we all value family, we all value those bonds that tie us to a small group of people who care for each other and depend upon each other.

We all value education.

I could go on, but you get the point. Many people believe that it is their religion that instructs them to have values that are seperate or somehow different than people without religion. I know a few athiests, and they are fine people who are not murderers, thieves, or in any other way lacking the same values that I imagine you hold. So values, per se, are not bad things at all---it is just when someone wants to impose their religious teachings on others that the others begin to lose their rights.

"Where religious values go wrong is when they attempt to undermine official church-state separation, such as having God in the pledge, on the money, or as a big slab of ten commandments granite in a public courthouse."

I agree. It's just that when you hear a politician talking about values it has always been(up until recently when Dean began explaining a deeper meaning of values) code for their religous beliefs--they believe that it is wrong for them to do something, therefore you can't either.


I did not mean to suggest that a politician would be forbidden to speak about religion, but do you really think that they would feel the need to pander if the zealots were no longer among their voting constituents? I think that politicians would be forced to speak more about the issues and less about catch phrases. It would be more likely that in my senerio the voters who remained would be inclined to vote on the real issues and not be caught up in voting for a candidate or a local measure because their preacher said that God would be angry (guilt, intimidation, fear) if they didn't vote "correctly".


Yes, I think we are pretty close to agreeing on the details, even if you don't agree with my premise :)

[acmejack]

7. Ideally, religion is a private thing.

I would like it to be that way. Proselytizing, IMO, is the big problem. So many religions feel it is necessary to ram it down others throats.

[pat_k]

8. Not two nations -- must marginalize the Theocons/Theocrats (aka Fascists)

"Theocons" "Theocrats" = Labels that evoke the repugnant. . .

. . .nature of what we are contending with by connecting "theocracy" with the horrible consequences of permitting fascist principle to infect the nation (e.g., permitting the neocon empire builders to infiltrate and dominate our government -- "Beware of false prophets. . . By their fruits you will know them." Matthew 7:15-20)

Rev. Neuhaus often misses the mark, but I loved it when he used the terms "theocon" and "theocrat" on Meet the Press this week.

Haven't come across the terms before, but they are terms we should be using. They convey a core truth about the reactionary-christianist-right. Whether monarchy, theocracy, or military dictatorship, it's all fascism -- the belief that a faction has the right to absolute rule.

We must reject their fascist fantasies. Those who sought to insert religion at our founding lost the debate. The Constitution is our common compact. Central to the agreement is the understanding that no faction can morally impose its moral absolutes upon the rest of us. We shall not tolerate tyranny, whether it be tyranny of the majority or the minority.

http://january6th.org/reject-fascist-fantasy.html

[me b zola]

10. Rut-Roh

I'm going to hell :scared: