This is essentially the plan of the Free State Movement, painted over with a rather vile veneer of historically-inaccurate Crosstianity. The Founders weren't Christian, didn't consider this a Christian nation, and wouldn't support this noise they're spouting.
I am, however, perfectly content with giving them a state in which to live... and then building large walls around it, sealing it off completely and never hearing from them again.
I'd respectfully suggest that doors would be necessary -- some in each generation would want to leave. And some in each generation on the outside would want to enter.
No doors. Too easily exploited. Those who want to get out could leave only if they could prove they were the only ones left. For those who want in, a simple solution: catapults.
I don't see how to do anything about that short of sending in careworkers to screen for homosexuality and escort the unfortunates out. These people want to be able to live apart from the rest of us. If that includes stoning their own children, I say let them. If they worship a truly loving God, let him manage their illness. If, on the other hand, they worship the god I think they do, a bloodthirsty war god, then he'll be quite happy with them for going back to a simpler time when women knew to shut up and get back into the kitchen, when children were seen and not heard unless they were being slapped around for touching themselves, and when good God-fearing people cleansed their communities of Satan and anything different by the healing touch of sharpened rocks thrown as hard as humanly possible. (/sarcasm)
Honestly, I'd find great pleasure in hearing that they'd failed utterly in trying to keep their theocratic haven running, were dying by the score, and were begging to be allowed back into civilization, only to be turned away and reminded that they had asked for this. But then, I'm probably more bloodthirsty than most people.
Indeed, I remember you from the whole refusal to get a c-section flap a few months back. Now you're worried about someone's kids?
I take it you would deny a group the right to self-governance in the name of the old tried and true battle cry, "Won't someone think of the children?!?" delivered at the highest volume a bleeding heart can produce. I worry greatly about your opinion, then, truly I do, about as much as I fear that Jerry Falwell is right to blame 9-11 on the gays, pagans, and general distancing of America from his brand of Crosstianity.
The federal government is considering whether marriage, the foundation of civilization since Creation, should be reserved solely to a man and a woman.
You know, from the tone, I'm not sure if they're for or against it. I mean, after all, historically speaking, marriage was usually between a man and his wives/concubines.
Hey, if it means getting them out of here, I'll chip in a few bucks. I hear Bikini Atoll has some lovely weather.
And for the first few centuries of Christianity, marriage was a civil matter, rather than a religious one. I'm always amazed at how little history people like this actually know.
I suggest Alaska -- it's nicely isolated from the rest of the country, and big enough so that they can all move there. Then we can sell it back to Russia and be rid of 'em.
I seem to remember a fairly long debate about whether states were allowed to leave the union. It was bitterly argued, but the pro-secession side lost the debate. I really don't think we want to do that again.
Besides, it would give Bush an excuse to 'temporarily' suspend the election for the 'duration of the emergency.'
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
momijizukamori and
no subject
Date: 25 May 2004 11:50 (UTC)no subject
Date: 25 May 2004 12:05 (UTC)I am, however, perfectly content with giving them a state in which to live... and then building large walls around it, sealing it off completely and never hearing from them again.
no subject
Date: 25 May 2004 13:30 (UTC)no subject
Date: 25 May 2004 15:00 (UTC)no subject
Date: 25 May 2004 15:12 (UTC)no subject
Date: 25 May 2004 20:37 (UTC)Honestly, I'd find great pleasure in hearing that they'd failed utterly in trying to keep their theocratic haven running, were dying by the score, and were begging to be allowed back into civilization, only to be turned away and reminded that they had asked for this. But then, I'm probably more bloodthirsty than most people.
no subject
Date: 25 May 2004 22:12 (UTC)Oh, wait, I remember you--I took you off my friendslist after the last such remark I heard from you, nevermind.
no subject
Date: 26 May 2004 04:57 (UTC)I take it you would deny a group the right to self-governance in the name of the old tried and true battle cry, "Won't someone think of the children?!?" delivered at the highest volume a bleeding heart can produce. I worry greatly about your opinion, then, truly I do, about as much as I fear that Jerry Falwell is right to blame 9-11 on the gays, pagans, and general distancing of America from his brand of Crosstianity.
no subject
Date: 25 May 2004 12:12 (UTC)You know, from the tone, I'm not sure if they're for or against it. I mean, after all, historically speaking, marriage was usually between a man and his wives/concubines.
Hey, if it means getting them out of here, I'll chip in a few bucks. I hear Bikini Atoll has some lovely weather.
no subject
Date: 25 May 2004 17:30 (UTC)no subject
Date: 26 May 2004 05:48 (UTC)no subject
Date: 25 May 2004 12:23 (UTC)no subject
Date: 25 May 2004 12:39 (UTC)Besides, it would give Bush an excuse to 'temporarily' suspend the election for the 'duration of the emergency.'
-M
no subject
Date: 25 May 2004 13:12 (UTC)no subject
Date: 25 May 2004 18:37 (UTC)