Not scary… misguided, perhaps. For one, there is no way on earth the federalist government of the US will let Alabama or South Carolina secede… half a million people died in the 1860’s over that question.

I’m all for restoring biblical principles of governance to our constitutional republice. In the meantime, we are called to be salt and light in the midst of the current world system.

Now Mississippi–that’s another story.

Scary if you live in one of the states experiencing the influx of kook-burgers.

Matt

I watched most of Colonial House on pbs. They struggled with this–mandatory church attendance, wearing letters (p for profanity was a popular one), etc. Wondering if the group you’re talking about will be putting church skippers in the stocks, sewing closed the lips of blasphers, and burning homosexuals at the stake.

As if Mississippi was scary enough.

Oh wait, they already do that last one in the south.

Matt

People are so messed up…it would start out roses, but give it some time and they’d be back at square one. Seems like everyone’s up for an utopian society, but it’s WAY outta reach until “kingdom come"…

A better proposal would be to figure out a way to eliminate the very existance of Kansas…that state is wickedly BORING to drive across (which is why “The World’s Largest Prarie Dog” museum is doing so well…)

While the idea of a Christian exodus is scary, I think I’ll put that in the “keep dreaming” file.

On the subject of Theology and government, I am a firm believer in the separation of Church and State. I don’t think it is the government’s place to legislate laws according to the morality of a particular religion, as this violates individual freedom. A democratic government ought to act in the interests of all its citizens, whether they believe in God or not.

I’ll look forward to hearing what you have to say about this, Danny.

I’ll try and post the article tonight.

Kyle: I think I agree that legislating the morality of a particular religion is not the best way to do it, but I’m a little usure what it. What is the proper basis for morality in a democracy? I believe in objective moral law, but I guess I still have to admit that the government should have laws that the majority agrees with, even when it goes against my view of moral law. But I’m already thinking of exceptions. What if the majority of a community thinks that schools should be segregated according to race? I’m sort of at a loss on the relationship between a democratic law and an objective moral law.

I wise teacher once told me, “One person’s rights end where another’s begin.” I believe this ought to be the basis for “objective moral law” in our country. Naturally, stealing is wrong because it violates another person’s right to property. Murder violates an individual’s right to life. By balancing people’s individual rights, I believe it is possible to arrive at an objective, humanistic morality separate from any one religion. In your example, states can be forbidden from discriminating by race because such a law violates minorities’ rights to equal opportunity.

Ok, that makes more sense than what I was thinking.

I think it’s a really great thing. I mean, who’s going to miss South Carolina when we have the benefit of getting all the kooks together in one place and watching them self-destruct? Let em’ have it!

Scary! But many colonial settlements were theocratic according to some wacko Protestant denomination, and going off en masse to a place was the goal often. Catholicism built western CIVILIZATION, Protestants have only created factional DENOMINATIONS.

Looks like the decision’s been made.
Just saw this article on ABCnews:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/US/GoodMorningAmerica/christian_exodus_040812-1.html

Doug