Welcome to Gaia! ::

A few years ago, I heard about these Christian organizations that planned on seceding South Carolina from the Union and making it a Christian theocracy. Back then, there were about 1,000 people planning this. Now, there are about 3,000.

When I first heard about this, I didn't think it was a good idea at all. This is America! Diversity, acceptance, education, tolerance! I don't think that it's Christlike at all to just leave that and form a separate society. I'm not saying all Christians are like this, just very many.

But now, as so many Christians want to use religion for political decisions *cough*same-sex marriage*cough*, use the Bible in science classes, promote Christianity (and bemoan other religions) in public institutions, and are even more boisterous - to the point of protesting funerals - I'm beginning to think it's a good idea. Hell, hate crimes and violations of the first amendment will definitely decrease in America if this takes place.

The thousands of Christians who have been trying to form a theocracy want South Carolina because of its rebellious, dogmatic history, it's access to sea and land trade, and for tourism to support the economy (Myrtle Beach is gorgeous). I think that they should allow open access to leave, but why would they listen to me? All schools would be Christian and women couldn't own property, use birth control, keep their family names, or have most jobs (it's their decision, that's another argument I won't get into here).

What do you think of this? Do you think this is a good idea? Would you go live there? Remember, all previous Christian theocracies ended in war, torture, and genocide.

QFT by someone who took a 400-level college course on the Civil War last term.

As an interesting, yet barely related side fact, South Carolina was the state to lead the way in seceeding before the Civil War as well, so this is par for the course for them.

I keep hearing various Christians say that the ultimate solution to the problems of the world would be to set up an island or stretch of land somewhere where all of the (pick your category: Jews, atheists, Muslims, gays, liberals, feminists, and the list goes on) could be isolated amongst themselves. Some of those who speak about this add, "And once they're all in one place, we (the good, kind, loving people who worship and think and look as we do) can just blow them to smithereens."

I'd like to say something funny (and if I'm being honest, even a little bit insulting) here. What I'd love to say would be witty, concisely worded, a real zinger. It would call attention to the irony of the idea that some of these same people want to set aside land to isolate themselves in the exact same way, possibly for the purpose of being blown to smithereens, presumably by the (pick your category, listed above). But... well, that wouldn't be nice of me, would it?

Double Plus Ungood

Yay Cookies!!! These are surplus cookie Rations from the war with Eurasia. We have always been at war with Euraisa

Not to stereotype, but, it does not surprise me in the very least that a movement such as this would be found in the South. Furthermore, it brings no blind-sided effects to me that people would want to do this. By allowing free-speach, and peaceful assembly people can openly speak about issues such as this. If they want to, they can. Fortunately, they won't be able to secede from the Union because a.) 3,000 members would constitute a faction, not a legitimate cause or party to propose such an action. b.) If I'm not mistaken, there's some legislation, that was put into place after the Civil War that does not allow states to secede from the Union. Then again, words aren't always effective in such situations.


I would wholeheartedly agree considering that in the Bible it states that a "house cannot stand divided" or something to that effect. Not only would this divide the Union, but, it would most likely lead into seperate religious offshoots of Christianity, in essence, splitting the church more than it already has.


Religion has always played a part in politics. Especially in a republic/ democracy. The point is to get elected, and if the majority of your population is say, Catholic, or Protestant, you will promote Protestant or Catholic ideals to appeal to this sects and gain their votes. Personally, I support same-sex marriage because I'm bisexual. Hopefully the Bible will never be found in a science class. Not to diminish the impact of the Bible, due to it being the single most influential text of the Western World, however, it has little scientific basis for it's claims and has time, and time again been disproved by scientific expirements. The promotion of Christianity is something I'm fine with, even being agnostic. However, what I believe is absolutely wrong are the foot-in-the-door type preacher's who think it's their right to force you to listen to such things. This obviously would make it impossible to promote Christianity in a class because it would be the same concept of forcing people to listen to proseletyzation (sp?). To diminish other religions something I abhor. No religion truly knows if it's correct or not, and to say that others lie is outright offensive and rather imbecilic on their part, you'd think none of them would have heard of Pascal's Wager before. Fred Phelp's protest of funerals is something that I just find deplorable. It is rather arrogant to say that hate-crimes would decrease. Not to be offensive, but, even if a theocracy was established, you'd still have factions that would revolt. If the theocratic military were to kill or imprison these factions then that would be a hate-crime. Merely, now, under a new name. It would be an act of "protecting the theocratic government". Same thing, new name. The establishment of a theocracy itself would violate the Constitution. It would not allow the freedom or religion (or lack thereof). Furthermore, I would be willing to place a large sum of money on the fact that they would make it a punishable crime to blaspheme and what not. That, again, violates the Constitution by not allowing freedom of speech.


Well, at least they chose a decently wise place to do it instead of a land-locked state such as Nebraska.


Personally, I find it to be absolutely rash. As Lyyov said, there's no such thing as a "good" theocracy when you've been raised to believe what you want and say what you believe. I would not go to live there being agnostic.

As has been said, no human-run government can ever be perfect, since humans are imperfect. Even more so, a government based solely on religious beliefs is doomed to failure even quicker, because religious beliefs are unique among men and women, and no complete cohesion can maintain. Besides, in small groups, a theocracy will not end well.

And, as a political aside, I draw a parallel between the United States and the Mafia.

I think That Albert Einstein said it the best... let me see if i can say it like he did...

"Religion without science is blind, and science without religion is lame."

too many people focus on one being all totally right and the other being absolute rubbish. to be totally honest i think, at the very least, that somewhere between the two truth lies. for the most part you need both. Religion is there for when science tells you you're gonna have a sh-tty day to help you pass the time. Science is there to help keep you from being duped into believing oxymoronic nonsense in total contradiction with logic.

Now as for seccesion, I may just be a poorly educated red-neck radical from the south, but to my recollection, and no i haven't taken any upper level history courses, but Thomas Jefferson, in the Declaration of Independence if i recall, said "that it is the responsibilty of the common man to take up and relieve himself of the yoke of an oppresive government through any means neccessary." One should always try the non-violent path first but if that path fails one has left but one recourse, Revolution. The South may have lost the war, but i hope the idea of freedom from opression, and that was exactly what the union did to them afterwarsd, was not lost as well.

Religion and government ought not to be ruled by the same figure. Now i don't know exactly how accurate it is to say that all christian theocracies ended in war, torture, and genocide, but as is typical, religious zeal always gets out of hand and is rarely tempered by common sense or logic. Man is and always will be fallable, rty though he might to seem otherwise. The pope does his best but I'm sure he gets it wrong sometimes too, (which is why I dont make a very good catholic). If people wish to live in a religious commune, by all means we have no real right to stop them, so long as they do not begin to oppress their citizenry or fail to comply with standard international law concerning human rights.



i hated that story, but good usage.