Confederate States of Atheism!

nude0007
atheist
nude0007's picture
Posts: 41
Joined: 2011-06-14
User is offlineOffline
Confederate States of Atheism!

I thought everyone might get a kick out of this idea. It's funny but would be cool if we could take it seriously.
I recently found a thread on The Rational Response Squad dealing with the civil war. I thought I'd separate this idea from the other thread as it probably should have been anyway. A site was posted csa.systek proof.com, which states that the Confederacy never surrendered. Gen. Lee surrendered his troops, effectively ending the fighting, but Pres. Davis and the vice pres went into hiding and never surrendered, so the south is living in a state of occupancy by a foreign govt.. They are trying to get enough people to acknowledge this to peacefully reinstate the confederacy. This would get us out from under the insane people in the USA fed gov..

I say we hijack the idea, and re-write the constitution, and form the Confederate States Of Atheism! We can make the requirements for holding office have a non-religious belief clause. People holding religious belief cannot vote. Elect scientists and engineers to government positions. Accept other states if they declare they want to be non-religious.

What do you think? Come on, let's have a bit of fun with the idea. It is a perfectly legit idea for people to break off from one country to form another. Just because we lean towards rational thought doesn't mean we can't imagine a bit. Approach it as a "What If?" scenario. What if it were a real possibility? It actually is as real as we want to make it, but even if we are just daydreaming, what would you want the CSA to be like?


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13854
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
nude0007 wrote:I thought

nude0007 wrote:
I thought everyone might get a kick out of this idea. It's funny but would be cool if we could take it seriously. I recently found a thread on The Rational Response Squad dealing with the civil war. I thought I'd separate this idea from the other thread as it probably should have been anyway. A site was posted csa.systek proof.com, which states that the Confederacy never surrendered. Gen. Lee surrendered his troops, effectively ending the fighting, but Pres. Davis and the vice pres went into hiding and never surrendered, so the south is living in a state of occupancy by a foreign govt.. They are trying to get enough people to acknowledge this to peacefully reinstate the confederacy. This would get us out from under the insane people in the USA fed gov.. I say we hijack the idea, and re-write the constitution, and form the Confederate States Of Atheism! We can make the requirements for holding office have a non-religious belief clause. People holding religious belief cannot vote. Elect scientists and engineers to government positions. Accept other states if they declare they want to be non-religious. What do you think? Come on, let's have a bit of fun with the idea. It is a perfectly legit idea for people to break off from one country to form another. Just because we lean towards rational thought doesn't mean we can't imagine a bit. Approach it as a "What If?" scenario. What if it were a real possibility? It actually is as real as we want to make it, but even if we are just daydreaming, what would you want the CSA to be like?

I don't want to rewrite the constitution. It already has a "NO RELIGIOUS TEST" clause in the section dealing with the oath of office and requirement to hold office.

And why the fuck would you want to model a country after a bunch of racist bigots. And FYI, even before the civil war or Revolutionary war the North American continent was OCCUPIED by Europeans who took it from native Americans. So if you are going to condemn all occupancy then you have to condemn the fact that this country even exists.

I think this is a stupid idea. No matter what degree a person may have whom we elect to office you are STILL dealing with humans and without some outside check on them you wont have a way to avoid a monopoly. As long as humans hold power, there will always be people who will seek absolute power. I don't give a shit what there title is or what degree they may have. Many a tyrant have educations.

If every person in America suddenly became an atheist, you would still have different economic ideas and different competing politics and you would still have the human desire for power.

Try dealing with reality the way it is instead of doing the same stupid shit theists do in trying to paint a utopia that wont exist.

I think the founders did the best they could for their time with the language they used. And quite frankly I think they did a great job with it. What we do now with it is up to us. But that law document, although slow for many minorities to employ, without it, would have stagnated in the past.

It is because of the First Amendment that all of us have the opportunity to appeal to our government and to raise our voices when we don't like something. We all can bitch about things we don't like without fear of being arrested. You may want to fuck with that idea, but I sure as hell dont.

Our country by no means is perfect, but the ideas it protects are human and secular and will allow atheists, WITHOUT FORCE, to gain more of a voice using the very same laws theists use.

I am glad you had no hand in writing our Constitution.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13854
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I know I came across as

I know I came across as harsh, but this issue is one of my pet peeves.

I hate it when some suggest that when I defend the Constitution I get falsely accused of worshiping it as if it were a bible itself. That is the other side of the coin.

Our country is NOT perfect, and the GOOD thing about the Constitution is that it is set up to allow for the opportunity for change. But the part that IS MOST important as a concept is that it is a document that is so entrenched to the idea of preventing monopolies of power.

What you suggest strips the idea of oversight and consent and checks and balances and puts the same blind trust in humans that any form of state or religious dogmatism has.

Keep in mind that Japan and Germany during WW2 employed scientists with the same degrees as the likes of Einstein. Lucky for us and the west they did not beat us to the punch.

Again, I would suggest rather than prevent people from doing stupid shit or promoting stupid shit, use your own voice to compete with and challenge their stupid shit and stupid claims. But you will never rid the world of our evolutionary nature by saying that a label will be a cure all.

Being a scientist or being an atheist will not automatically make one ethical or moral. Your label is merely a position you hold. THAT is a separate issue than your actions.

THE bottom line is that humans are humans and all of us are capable of the same range of human emotions and actions, both good and bad,  regardless of class, status or education. That has always been the case and will always be the case.

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Not exactly correct

You are in error here,

The last forces surrendered on June 23, the Indians fighting under Cherokee Gen Stand Watie.

Davis was captured and was incarcerated for 2 years.

 

 See - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conclusion_of_the_American_Civil_War

 

nude0007 wrote:

I thought everyone might get a kick out of this idea. It's funny but would be cool if we could take it seriously. I recently found a thread on The Rational Response Squad dealing with the civil war. I thought I'd separate this idea from the other thread as it probably should have been anyway. A site was posted csa.systek proof.com, which states that the Confederacy never surrendered. Gen. Lee surrendered his troops, effectively ending the fighting, but Pres. Davis and the vice pres went into hiding and never surrendered, so the south is living in a state of occupancy by a foreign govt..

Davis and his cabinet dissolved the Confederate Gov't on May 5, 1865 in Washington Georgia. Davis was captured on May 10, 1865 just North of Irwindale Georgia.

All commanders eventually surrendered their troops and commands with the exception of the CMS Shenandoah that finally surrendered in Liverpool England

 

 

nude0007 wrote:

They are trying to get enough people to acknowledge this to peacefully reinstate the confederacy.

It was dissolved, there is nothing to reinstate.

 

nude0007 wrote:

This would get us out from under the insane people in the USA fed gov.. I say we hijack the idea, and re-write the constitution, and form the Confederate States Of Atheism! We can make the requirements for holding office have a non-religious belief clause. People holding religious belief cannot vote. Elect scientists and engineers to government positions. Accept other states if they declare they want to be non-religious. What do you think? Come on, let's have a bit of fun with the idea. It is a perfectly legit idea for people to break off from one country to form another. Just because we lean towards rational thought doesn't mean we can't imagine a bit. Approach it as a "What If?" scenario. What if it were a real possibility? It actually is as real as we want to make it, but even if we are just daydreaming, what would you want the CSA to be like?

 

A better idea is to get a Constitutional convention called to address the issues that you would like to see changed.

 

Of course that takes 34 states to call one.

 

Brian,

 

I think Nude0007 was mostly trying to have fun here.

 

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13854
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:You

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

You are in error here,

The last forces surrendered on June 23, the Indians fighting under Cherokee Gen Stand Watie.

Davis was captured and was incarcerated for 2 years.

 

 See - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conclusion_of_the_American_Civil_War

 

nude0007 wrote:

I thought everyone might get a kick out of this idea. It's funny but would be cool if we could take it seriously. I recently found a thread on The Rational Response Squad dealing with the civil war. I thought I'd separate this idea from the other thread as it probably should have been anyway. A site was posted csa.systek proof.com, which states that the Confederacy never surrendered. Gen. Lee surrendered his troops, effectively ending the fighting, but Pres. Davis and the vice pres went into hiding and never surrendered, so the south is living in a state of occupancy by a foreign govt..

Davis and his cabinet dissolved the Confederate Gov't on May 5, 1865 in Washington Georgia. Davis was captured on May 10, 1865 just North of Irwindale Georgia.

All commanders eventually surrendered their troops and commands with the exception of the CMS Shenandoah that finally surrendered in Liverpool England

 

 

nude0007 wrote:

They are trying to get enough people to acknowledge this to peacefully reinstate the confederacy.

It was dissolved, there is nothing to reinstate.

 

nude0007 wrote:

This would get us out from under the insane people in the USA fed gov.. I say we hijack the idea, and re-write the constitution, and form the Confederate States Of Atheism! We can make the requirements for holding office have a non-religious belief clause. People holding religious belief cannot vote. Elect scientists and engineers to government positions. Accept other states if they declare they want to be non-religious. What do you think? Come on, let's have a bit of fun with the idea. It is a perfectly legit idea for people to break off from one country to form another. Just because we lean towards rational thought doesn't mean we can't imagine a bit. Approach it as a "What If?" scenario. What if it were a real possibility? It actually is as real as we want to make it, but even if we are just daydreaming, what would you want the CSA to be like?

 

A better idea is to get a Constitutional convention called to address the issues that you would like to see changed.

 

Of course that takes 34 states to call one.

 

Brian,

 

I think Nude0007 was mostly trying to have fun here.

 

 

 

I know, but the suggestion still gives me a severe lip twitch. That is why I came back with "I know it sounds harsh"

But it really is one of my pet pevevs . It boils down to "good intent can be a cluster fuck"

Everything sounds nice on paper, but the reality is that we are not dealing with ideas, but humans who have ideas. And since humans will always be flawed, this kind of mental masturbation will always make me cringe.

Again, I wasn't pulling my fangs out to be mean, but just as a "MOMMY" reaction and "hold on now".

Just think of my post as Bullwinkle trying to pull the rabbit out of his hat, "Humn, don't know my own strength"

Instead of postulating utopias, humans need to deal with reality, not the way they want it, but the way it is.

I'd like it too if no one believed in fictional beings, and that none of our politicians used their deity for political gain, but it can and will happen. So I would suggest that we DONT try to force this flawed human behavior out of existence, but use our own voice to show how absurd it is. No one likes to be forced into a position or feel like they are being subjugated to others, which makes this proposition a bad idea, even if postulated for "fun".

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
 Brian37

 

Brian37 wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Brian,

 

I think Nude0007 was mostly trying to have fun here.

 

 

 

I know, but the suggestion still gives me a severe lip twitch. That is why I came back with "I know it sounds harsh"

But it really is one of my pet pevevs . It boils down to "good intent can be a cluster fuck"

Everything sounds nice on paper, but the reality is that we are not dealing with ideas, but humans who have ideas. And since humans will always be flawed, this kind of mental masturbation will always make me cringe.

Again, I wasn't pulling my fangs out to be mean, but just as a "MOMMY" reaction and "hold on now".

Just think of my post as Bullwinkle trying to pull the rabbit out of his hat, "Humn, don't know my own strength"

Instead of postulating utopias, humans need to deal with reality, not the way they want it, but the way it is.

I'd like it too if no one believed in fictional beings, and that none of our politicians used their deity for political gain, but it can and will happen. So I would suggest that we DONT try to force this flawed human behavior out of existence, but use our own voice to show how absurd it is. No one likes to be forced into a position or feel like they are being subjugated to others, which makes this proposition a bad idea, even if postulated for "fun".

   

I know it is one of your pet peeves.

I agree that no one should be forced into anything. People need to learn for themselves that the god belief is fantasy. When you force something you generally cause adverse effects. We have had plenty of experience in the US with that. Prohibition and drug laws for example. Both created adverse effects, gangs, criminals, excessive costs, and much violence. Banning god belief would do the same. Just look to the examples of the Inquisition, which was forcing the RCC position on all. Believe my way or die.

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13854
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I think the other reason I

I think the other reason I went off to that degree was bringing up the South. Yea, the founders owned slaves too, but damn, the South wanted to maintain slavery. Although the country still had slavery at it's founding, one thing the civil war rightfully ended was slavery.

It is bad enough slavery existed, but to claim "occupation" as an argument when the South wanted to keep slaves, is a pretty bad argument.

If one wants to make "states rights" vs "FEDs" I'd use that and other topics outside the civil war to make a case for or against centeralized government.'

And there is a "supremacy clause" in the Constitution that says when a state vs fed issue comes up, the fed rule overrides the states rights.

I AM GLAD that is the case because all the state constitutions that bar atheists from holding office are Constitutionally hollow because of the "supremacy clause" of "no religious test".

So the issue of a politicians education IE Bush, can lead to bad outcomes. We still cant replace it with forced exclusion of others in a democracy. All we can do is try to avoid electing idiots and put term limits on everyone to insure that no absolute power can grow.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
What I'd like to see is

What I'd like to see is ideas like the Freestate project, the Freedom Ship and perhaps one day independent colonies in space take off.

I think humans are just too religiously and politially diverse to live together without tons of conflict. I think it is best that birds of feather stay together and not bother groups that want to be seperated.

 

http://www.freedomship.com/

http://freestateproject.org/

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


nude0007
atheist
nude0007's picture
Posts: 41
Joined: 2011-06-14
User is offlineOffline
da bitch is back

 Brian, I didn't say we follow their constitution.  2nd paragraph 8th word to 12th or so.  Re-write. Re-write the Confederacy's constitution, not the USA's.  Theirs goes on about a country under god, blah blah blah.   We make it what WE want.  didn't say model our country after anything.  just claim their former country as ours for a bit of irony and validation.  The only requirement I stipulated for office was that they NOT have a religious affiliation.  I indicated we COULD and possibly SHOULD elect people with other degrees besides LAW or POLITICS like they are now.  It seems the present practice isn't achieving a desired result.    didn't imply or state that anyone's right to free speech or anything else was to be changed or violated or forced.  Just that only truly secular people could run this country.  It is what the founders wanted, I'm pretty sure.

 

What you suggest strips the idea of oversight and consent and checks and balances and puts the same blind trust in humans that any form of state or religious dogmatism has.

 

I am not understanding what i said that indicates whatever you mean by this.

To Pauljohntheskeptic: Okay, I took the word of the csa site that Davis never surrendered or dissolved the country.  I stand corrected, but even so, it is irrelevant.  Anyone can lay claim to a country name or idea and owning a patch of land can claim they are a different country.  I may be really naive in believing that it could be accomplished without bloodshed, but hey, Ghandi accomplished his goals peacefully.  I am not saying outlaw god worship, just god worship and holding public office.  Kinda like we pretty much say you can't hold office now if you are completely insane (or at least have been proven to be so).  Kinda like some states saying their candidates for office must acknowledge a higher power, we would do just the opposite.  That's all.

I as thinking along the lines of what I posted in the other thread.  That by forming a new country, we would not be responsible for the current USA's debt.  If we tore off enough states, the old USA would collapse, and we could take over the states that didn't come with us initially, still not incurring any of their old debt.  We can take the USA's current declaration verbatim, and constitution too excepting any recent amendments that we determine are causing some of the current problems!

 

I really don't get what I said that pissed you Brian.  I am truly sorry, whatever it was.

 I am not advocating anything other than making a truly secular country, like several others that exist today.  Removing the religious influence as much as possible.  It would be great if the current efforts by many atheist/secular organizations would be enough and in time, but I am not so optimistic.  I am sorely afraid that we will have a GOP president next election, and they will plunge us back into Spanish Inquisition times.  Even if Obama gets re-elected, he doesn't seem too firm on separation of church and state, which I think is high time we enforced fully.  I see an abundance of christian schools down here and it is scaring me to death.

 

I was trying to have a bit of fun, semi-serious or serious, depending on how far you want to take it or think about it.  It is more like pulling out the rug supporting the religious influences on our current government, by a slick trick.  Kinda like "ok, so you spent billions lobbying the US govt. to push religious agendas, well, sorry, this is a new govt. unable to be influenced in those ways.  Nyah!"

I firmly believe that without religion, we can actually make a utopia.  I may still be naive, but I'd like to see us try.  I bet we could get a lot further than many would think.

Lighten up everyone.  Dream a little.  Imagination is not anti-rational.  Heck, fun might even be rational.  Me?  I'm crazy as a loon thanks to god almighty, so I take what hand I was dealt and try to make the best of it. (grin)

Thanks for at least not ignoring me.  It is nice to talk to someone who doesn't place everything under god's will every other breath.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
nude0007 wrote: I firmly

nude0007 wrote:

 

I firmly believe that without religion, we can actually make a utopia.  I may still be naive, but I'd like to see us try.  I bet we could get a lot further than many would think.

Lighten up everyone.  Dream a little.  Imagination is not anti-rational.  Heck, fun might even be rational.  Me?  I'm crazy as a loon thanks to god almighty, so I take what hand I was dealt and try to make the best of it. (grin)

Thanks for at least not ignoring me.  It is nice to talk to someone who doesn't place everything under god's will every other breath.

I think with the right technology, we can actually make a utopia. This technology would have to make getting high on religion obsolete. Please see this for more info:

http://www.hedweb.com/

The technology would have to be directed at what goes on in our heads and genes.

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

Well Nude, I really have never bothered to read the confederate constitution before. Let's not pretend that it has any validity these days. Even so, I could use it as one of a few documents on which to base a new work.

 

The language about slavery has to go. The language about religion needs to be heavily modified but not simply deleted. The different limits on federal power offer some interesting thoughts but we would need to get that matched with what is already going on. The specific presidential term limit, I really don't like that one all that much.

 

I could try my hand at writing a constitution. I promise that you will not like a fair bit of what I come up with but that is just part of the process that every nation that has done a similar document has dealt with. The end document is always a compromise.

 

One point that I do like is the idea that all laws must be about a single subject and that subject must be clear in the title of the law. I would add to that the idea that all laws expire every so many years and must be renewed by the legislature. Big ones like murder can go through on a rubber stamp. Medium ones that do merit some debate force a legislature to prioritize their time. Really dumb laws will be very hard to get through at all and likely will not get renewed.

 

I think that I would probably remove the clause that the president be a natural born citizen and replace it with something along the lines of “has to have lived in the country for a bunch of years”.

 

Why only three branches of government? That seems like a minimum. They can play rock paper scissors over power. Still, why not four or even five? If we did that, how would it work?

 

We should consider what happens when the deal breaks down. It has many times since the US was formed.

 

Do we want an electoral college? It always comes up after a tight election. Whomever lost wants to do away with it and go to a direct vote. However, it does serve a purpose. It has been a key factor in a few close elections. Having a legal system for dealing with close elections has made matters clear.

 

These are only some of the questions which we need to deal with if you really want to do this. There are others and just saying that we can change a sentence or two around does not address these serious issues.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13854
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:nude0007 wrote: I

EXC wrote:

nude0007 wrote:

 

I firmly believe that without religion, we can actually make a utopia.  I may still be naive, but I'd like to see us try.  I bet we could get a lot further than many would think.

Lighten up everyone.  Dream a little.  Imagination is not anti-rational.  Heck, fun might even be rational.  Me?  I'm crazy as a loon thanks to god almighty, so I take what hand I was dealt and try to make the best of it. (grin)

Thanks for at least not ignoring me.  It is nice to talk to someone who doesn't place everything under god's will every other breath.

I think with the right technology, we can actually make a utopia. This technology would have to make getting high on religion obsolete. Please see this for more info:

http://www.hedweb.com/

The technology would have to be directed at what goes on in our heads and genes.

 

There will never be anything called a utopia. Technology can improve lives, but you are depending on humans not to use that same technology to harm people. As long as humans seek power all technology will be subject to the same usefulness and harm humans have always used it for.

I would love to go back in time and bitch slap Plato for selling humanity this childish and ignorant idea of utopias. They will never exist. Period.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


nude0007
atheist
nude0007's picture
Posts: 41
Joined: 2011-06-14
User is offlineOffline
exactly

 The Confederate constitution is really not worth reading, it was my intent (I am pretty sure I said this under the other thread) to basically gut it and replace it with what we have now with a few mods that have happened lately that have harmed us far more than helped.

I might like what you come up with for constitutional changes.  Lets hear it!  Dare to dream and share the dream.  I think the electorial college is a bad idea.  I like the idea of having laws be reviewed every so often to see if they are still valid.

Now you are talking! Technology can and will deliver us a Utopia, at least as much as possible.  EXC, you are correct, but don't think it through far enough.   People want power because it gives them some advantage  over others.  When technology supplies everyones needs and desires fully, we won't have people feeling the need to gain power over others.  Star Trek was supposed to be this way, but of course writers introduced some elements of political bs to make stories interesting.  You certainly have a right to your opinion, and you may actually be right, but I think the more tech we have that meets more and more of our wants and needs, we will rid ourselves of more of our needless aggressive behavior toward s one another. HOWEVER, religion is against tech.  It wants us to turn to a god for fulfilment. If tech supplies all our wants and needs, why do we need a god? It has held us back for centuries and continues to do so.  At the very least it must be minimalized and marginalized, relegated to lunatic fringe that no one sane really pays attention to.

ugh. cant tipe dis mornin


nude0007
atheist
nude0007's picture
Posts: 41
Joined: 2011-06-14
User is offlineOffline
south

 I could be wrong, but I don't think the south so much wanted to keep slavery as they just didn't want some Fed Gov tellin them what to do(and they were wrong in that).  The war was about states rights. Slavery didn't enter into it till later.  Several northern states were slave states and were going to keep their slaves until it became an issue later in the war.  Technology was making slavery an inefficient practice.  If there had been no war, slavery would have ended anyway.

If we don't exclude religious from voting, then we need to enforce that no law can be made or changed for religious reasons, but that seems to be ignored almost always.  The recent de-funding of Planned Parenthood and other federal Programs was for religious reasons.  That shouldn't have been allowed or even considered.   It should have been tossed out summarily.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
I don"t know about the south and

 

so on but I have fantasised about some volcano island appearing from under the sea - you know - new land with no indigenous guilt to deal with - and creating an atheist state there. Of course, as others have pointed out this flies in the face of free speech and freedom of thought, worship, contravenes the UN's charter of human rights, etc. There are plenty of virtually atheist nations and most governments are secular so it's a bit silly. But I think about is all the same. 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13854
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
nude0007 wrote: I could be

nude0007 wrote:

 I could be wrong, but I don't think the south so much wanted to keep slavery as they just didn't want some Fed Gov tellin them what to do(and they were wrong in that).  The war was about states rights. Slavery didn't enter into it till later.  Several northern states were slave states and were going to keep their slaves until it became an issue later in the war.  Technology was making slavery an inefficient practice.  If there had been no war, slavery would have ended anyway.

If we don't exclude religious from voting, then we need to enforce that no law can be made or changed for religious reasons, but that seems to be ignored almost always.  The recent de-funding of Planned Parenthood and other federal Programs was for religious reasons.  That shouldn't have been allowed or even considered.   It should have been tossed out summarily.

You would have a better argument saying, and there were many in the North, that were not so much for ending slavery as for by ending it would undermine the economy of the south. The north was industrial and relied more on machines whereas the south was crop based and the labor was free.

While all wars are about a struggle over resources, slavery was as much a social issue in that war on par with any economic reasons it was started.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
nude0007 wrote:To

nude0007 wrote:

To Pauljohntheskeptic: Okay, I took the word of the csa site that Davis never surrendered or dissolved the country.  I stand corrected, but even so, it is irrelevant.  Anyone can lay claim to a country name or idea and owning a patch of land can claim they are a different country.  I may be really naive in believing that it could be accomplished without bloodshed, but hey, Ghandi accomplished his goals peacefully.  I am not saying outlaw god worship, just god worship and holding public office.  Kinda like we pretty much say you can't hold office now if you are completely insane (or at least have been proven to be so).  Kinda like some states saying their candidates for office must acknowledge a higher power, we would do just the opposite.  That's all.

OK. Anyone can make claims to land, but as the Civil War showed, do you really think the Federal US government would stand still for states leaving unless it was approved by Congress and 2/3 of the other states? The war was more about secession being illegal than it was about slavery, at 1st anyway.

nude0007 wrote:

I as thinking along the lines of what I posted in the other thread.  That by forming a new country, we would not be responsible for the current USA's debt.  If we tore off enough states, the old USA would collapse, and we could take over the states that didn't come with us initially, still not incurring any of their old debt.  We can take the USA's current declaration verbatim, and constitution too excepting any recent amendments that we determine are causing some of the current problems!

That's not what happened when the USSR broke up. Each republic got its fair share of debt and assets (mostly determined by Russia and Ukraine who got all the nukes.)

 

 

nude0007 wrote:

 

I was trying to have a bit of fun, semi-serious or serious, depending on how far you want to take it or think about it.  It is more like pulling out the rug supporting the religious influences on our current government, by a slick trick.  Kinda like "ok, so you spent billions lobbying the US govt. to push religious agendas, well, sorry, this is a new govt. unable to be influenced in those ways.  Nyah!"

I firmly believe that without religion, we can actually make a utopia.  I may still be naive, but I'd like to see us try.  I bet we could get a lot further than many would think.

Lighten up everyone.  Dream a little.  Imagination is not anti-rational.  Heck, fun might even be rational.  Me?  I'm crazy as a loon thanks to god almighty, so I take what hand I was dealt and try to make the best of it. (grin)

Thanks for at least not ignoring me.  It is nice to talk to someone who doesn't place everything under god's will every other breath.

I understand that.

Like I indicated there are other ways to get what you want, such as a Constitutional Convention. Personally I think its time we do this and make the constitution more applicable to the 21st century.

It could be called for instituting a balanced budget requirement and/or giving line item veto to the President. But at the convention, all motions are in order. We could put in amendments for term limits, change the length of Senate terms, limit by amendment candidates spending to reasonable limits. Legalize things that are victimless crimes. And more.

That's why this won't happen, all motions would be in order. The Tea party would put forth their agenda, but so too would liberals,  Libertarians (different than Tea Baggers), and Conservatives. Politicians are scared of a Constitutional Convention being called. They would get screwed over.

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

nude0007 wrote:
I might like what you come up with for constitutional changes.  Lets hear it!  Dare to dream and share the dream.  I think the electorial college is a bad idea.  I like the idea of having laws be reviewed every so often to see if they are still valid.

 

Well, I would not get rid of the electoral college myself. I would consider the five failures that we have had and adjust it to block those total disasters from happening. Honestly, it was originally put into place by the founders for specific reasons which remain valid to this day.
 

I brought it up because as PJTS observed, once we start the process of major change, all possible questions are on the table. Having that pretty much everyone who could participate in the discussion had to deal with the chaos after election 2000, it is one that I an sure will come up.

 

Consider what the alternative would be. A direct popular vote will not work in this case. Remember all of the uncounted votes in Florida? Well all states had uncounted votes as well. If we have direct voting, the attendant chaos will not be confined to one state but can end up in any state where the vote is close. In addition, the national number of uncounted votes was more than ten time the supposed margin of victory, thus we would have had to go through a nation wide recount.

 

So as much as the loser of a close race might claim a popular victory, the popular vote option is just not all that great of an idea.

 

All of the law suits we saw in 2000 were based on laws passed after the election of 1876 which was a very similar situation. However, at that point, there was not even a shred of a legal procedure. Think that the Supreme court voted for Bush? You could make a technical case but they did follow the laws passed more than a century earlier because of that fuck up. In 1876, the “special commision” that was set up hastily voted for Hayes.

 

1872 showed us an even more bizarre case. Horace Greely won 43.8% of the popular vote and 66 electors. So there was no way that he could win. Then he up and died before the electoral votes were cast. His electors all went rogue.

 

None of them voted for Grant. Which would have been sensible in that by bot popular vote and electoral college, he was the automatic winner anyway. Most of them voted for the other minor candidates who got tiny percentages of the vote. Three of them voted for the corpse candidate.

 

1824 had four viable candidates, all from the same party and all with specific regional support. So nobody won the vote either way you slice it. If you go by popular vote, then Jackson would have won with his 41.3%. So technically, nobody won the election. It took congress months to sort the matter out with apparent victories for John Quincy Adams a couple of times along the way.

 

1800 was probably the worst of them all. There were five candidates from two parties. There was no national voting day, so voting did not end until seven months after it began. So by the time it came to hold the electoral college, everyone knew that Jefferson won the popular vote by 61.8%.

 

However, there was an under the table agreement that certain electors would not vote the way that they should. Adding to the chaos, the Democrat-Republican party failed to tell their electors of the situation and they cast the votes that they really ought to have. In addition, Georgia did not file a legal ballot.

 

So when it came time to actually count the votes, it was questionable whether Georgia's votes should be considered. Fortunately, the official vote counter at the time was the president pro tem of the senate. Unfortunately, that was Thomas Jefferson himself. If he did not count Georgia's irregular ballot, he would lose the election. If he did count it, considering the fuck up with the vote switching, he would have to produce an electoral tie.

 

Throwing all caution to the wind, he went ahead and counted them. As with 1824, it took congress months to sort the matter out.

 

So I am going to say that it stays in. Only because popular votes suck worse and the Westminster system is the alternative that would work best. BTW, Westminster is one where congress would sort the matter out after every election. Since that is a total fuck up every time we go through this, I think we can fix it better than ditching it.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: There will

Brian37 wrote:

 

There will never be anything called a utopia. Technology can improve lives, but you are depending on humans not to use that same technology to harm people. As long as humans seek power all technology will be subject to the same usefulness and harm humans have always used it for.

I would love to go back in time and bitch slap Plato for selling humanity this childish and ignorant idea of utopias. They will never exist. Period. 

No one has a crystal ball to say if there will ever be a utopia. The problem with technology is that we've reinvented the world we live in but we've not yet reinvented ourselves. If you ask why are corporations and Republicans such greedy bastards, I think you can only rationally come to the conclusion that it's in there genes to be this way. They derive pleasure from being this way. It's just genes making people be this way.

I think technology is either going to go one of two ways, it becomes so powerful that a few individuals can destroy all human life or we use it to re-engineer what makes us tick, reinvent what gives us pleasure and pain. Technology is driving us either toward extinction or a hedonistic paradise, it all depends on how rational we are about using it.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Such a state wouldn't be

Such a state wouldn't be better than other states. There is a plenty of filth even in non-religious governments. If it's not theocracy, it can be cleptocracy, selling out its own people like Czech Republic. 
A state is like a system that needs regulation. It needs a positive feedback from the people and negative feedback too. It also needs to act like a real company, one that makes money and manages everything efficiently. If yes, positive feedback. If not, negative feedback. NEVER vice versa, as it often is.

But it is an interesting thought. Do Americans have any virtues or lack of vices, that could be enhanced by bringing down the theocracy? If religiosity is the main problem, then by solving it the society would be relatively problem-free and free to organize itself ingeniously. Something like ancient Athens, only with automatization instead of slaves. I wouldn't like to see people freed from religion to go after each other's throat following the religion of money and market.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


nude0007
atheist
nude0007's picture
Posts: 41
Joined: 2011-06-14
User is offlineOffline
responses

 to pjts: on the claim to land thing, I am looking at how many problems he current state has.  If even texas seceeded, (The only state that reseved that right), it might be the straw that broke the camel's back.  Even if not, If a section of the US announced it was going to break off, that alone might precipitate the financial plunge.  Some experts have theorized/predicted that our economy won't last thru december anyway (Prophets Of Doom, History channel) I think they would be more concerned with other things than waging war.

As for the USSR, they agreed to it and it was after the breakup.  If we separate before, the debt doesn't follow us. 

 

Electoral college.  The problem I see with the college thingy is that a state with lots of population decides on a candidate 51% to 49%.  Well that may mean hundreds of thousands of votes against the candidate are now magically switched to FOR the candidate.  Added to other votes in other states that are FOR him, he might win the whole she-bang.  I think we could easily enact a voting over the internet system using the security banks use, and based on our social security numbers.  It would be much faster too.  Perhaps more people would vote if it was that easy.

I also think that congress should only "pass" bills to the extent that they agree WE should get to vote on them.  No more raising their own salaries, no more giving money to wall street unless we vote and agree.  The budget would get a final approval from us too.

 

EXC: I am betting on genetic medicine.  It is coming.  Imagine a pill or injection tailored specifically to you!  NO side effects.  In such a society, better solutions to many mental problems would become available.  They would be able to be achieved faster without the drag of religion around the issue.

LUMINON: true enough, bad things will still happen for a while, but without the drag of religion, we would at least have one less detriment to deal with (and I think it is a huge one).  Besides, we could become more like Sweden or other successful atheist countries, where crime is WAY down.  Atheists are way more peaceful, helpful and civic minded.  The real problem is that we'd still have religious people here, and they'd feel more angry because they couldn't get their way.  Maybe mandatory marijuana run thru the ventilation during church services? (grin)

AtheistExtremist: I have often fantasized about this island thing myself.  Have you heard about the seasteading movement? I saw an article the other day that said due to some really rich guy chipping in they were actually going to get the chance to see how their experiment works.  As I understood it, they wan to create giant floating (but anchorable) islands that are a complete society producing as much of their needs as they can, either floating out in international waters or anchored to underwater islands that don't quite reach above sea level.  They figure they can produce most of their needs, and eventually all, if technology goes the right way.  It is a cool idea and their government is supposedly structured to be more liberal, secular, atheist-friendly and modern than any in existence now.  Just google seasteading.  Interesting reading.  You can buy in, but it is expensive.  If they can prove the idea, I might sell all and go for it myself (if I live that long)

They have the advantage over my feeble idea in that they are operating in international waters, so no country can object.  I still wonder about pirates, storms, and food, just to name a few.

 


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
nude0007 wrote: to pjts: on

nude0007 wrote:

 to pjts: on the claim to land thing, I am looking at how many problems he current state has.  If even texas seceeded, (The only state that reseved that right), it might be the straw that broke the camel's back.  Even if not, If a section of the US announced it was going to break off, that alone might precipitate the financial plunge.  Some experts have theorized/predicted that our economy won't last thru december anyway (Prophets Of Doom, History channel) I think they would be more concerned with other things than waging war.

As for the USSR, they agreed to it and it was after the breakup.  If we separate before, the debt doesn't follow us.

 

I grew up in Colorado and moved to Florida 22 years ago. I have no use for Texas. They come to Colorado to kill each other and drive their RVs to places a mountain goat can't go leaving their broken vehicles behind.

I would have no issue if Texas left after they'd paid for all of the Federal investments in their state. They can then become isolated.

The US Constitution does not provide a means for a state to secede. It only provides a way to join. It is a perpetual union.

 

See- Texas vs White - US Supreme Court decision - http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0074_0700_ZO.html

In this decision it is made clear that no state even Texas had the right to leave the Union unilaterally.

So, dream on.

 

Quote:

Article IV

Section. 3.

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

Texas can think whatever they like, but they aren't leaving without an Amendment to the US Constituition that provides a way to secede.

Alaska is another state that has discussions about seceding, they even have a party. They have no way to do this as we bought it from Russia and all of the United States owns Alaska. They of course could pay us the current value of the purchase plus improvements after the aforementioned Constitutional Amendment was successfully passed by 3/4 of the states to provide a means to secede.

Don't hold your breath.

 

 

 

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

Actually, the electoral college gives power to the smaller states. Consider the options and you should see why.

 

In a direct popular vote, candidates need only appeal to the largest population centers and ignore less populous areas.

 

Under the electoral college, if the election is close, every state has the power to flip the deal. If you count DC, there are 13 states which have either 3 or 4 electoral votes with a total of 44 electoral votes.

 

Now most people reflexively think of election 2000 where Florida pulled a massive fuck up. If they look at the electoral vote map, it becomes clear that their 29 votes is only exceeded by California with 55. However, as I say, there are 44 in the smallest 13.

 

Now there are two ways to end the electoral college. The constitutional convention that we have already discussed. Ain't gonna happen unless there is a major crisis. That or a constitutional amendment. That requires three quarters of the states. One quarter of the states can screw the pooch on that. The magic number for that is exactly 13. The same as the number of states that would be screwed by the deal.

 

Also, what shall we replace it with? As I noted earlier, direct popular vote is going to eventually end up with a full nationwide recount. The Westminster system is also not a direct vote. Got another idea?

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
nude0007 wrote:LUMINON: true

nude0007 wrote:

LUMINON: true enough, bad things will still happen for a while, but without the drag of religion, we would at least have one less detriment to deal with (and I think it is a huge one).  Besides, we could become more like Sweden or other successful atheist countries, where crime is WAY down.  Atheists are way more peaceful, helpful and civic minded.  The real problem is that we'd still have religious people here, and they'd feel more angry because they couldn't get their way.  Maybe mandatory marijuana run thru the ventilation during church services? (grin)

Very well. Imagine America without religion, Czech Republic without corruption, Slovakia without Hungarians, Russia without alcoholism, Canada without the cold and Palestine without Israelites. We all have our problems. 

Religious people should be sent to see my country and talk to local believers, to see that they have practically no political ambitions. Local politics is so corrupted, that even the most devoted believer or righteous crime fighter will start taking enormous bribes, provided by business mafia lobbyists. 
This is why America has a great hope in secularists like Richard Dawkins (I know he's British) and the remaining of 'horsemen', who hopefully don't do all their work just to make more space in government for greedy pragmatic materialists. 

It seems Dawkins is a leftist. We know that free market is a beautiful and harmonious model, but that's it, a model which never existed in reality. Free market, if there ever was one, inevitably changes to oligopoly, where a couple of strong winners dominate the market and control the hem of small companies. This is why the very idea of free market should be mistrusted and rejected. But what in return?
Whatever we take away, must be replaced by positive values. In countries like Sweden the positive value is reciprocity. When a rich man is charged for speeding (much more than a poor man), he knows the money go directly and transparently to the local administration and are used for things like modernizing a school or repairing a playground. It makes paying the taxes and fines that much more enjoyable, that some German succesful businessmen even called for higher taxes! Compare that beautiful efficiency to a completely irresponsible government with a big cross on top of it, and give people the choice.

Do you think such an exchange could be made in a positive mood? Take the glitter and tinsel (and undue power) away from politics in favor of local administration. Emphasize religion as a valuable cultural wealth and everyone's personal business (private praying and anonymous charity as Jesus says) and then say it is too good for dirtying it with the lowly politics, which is nothing more than administrative organizing of stuff that we're too busy to do ourselves. 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13854
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

nude0007 wrote:
I might like what you come up with for constitutional changes.  Lets hear it!  Dare to dream and share the dream.  I think the electorial college is a bad idea.  I like the idea of having laws be reviewed every so often to see if they are still valid.

 

Well, I would not get rid of the electoral college myself. I would consider the five failures that we have had and adjust it to block those total disasters from happening. Honestly, it was originally put into place by the founders for specific reasons which remain valid to this day.
 

I brought it up because as PJTS observed, once we start the process of major change, all possible questions are on the table. Having that pretty much everyone who could participate in the discussion had to deal with the chaos after election 2000, it is one that I an sure will come up.

 

Consider what the alternative would be. A direct popular vote will not work in this case. Remember all of the uncounted votes in Florida? Well all states had uncounted votes as well. If we have direct voting, the attendant chaos will not be confined to one state but can end up in any state where the vote is close. In addition, the national number of uncounted votes was more than ten time the supposed margin of victory, thus we would have had to go through a nation wide recount.

 

So as much as the loser of a close race might claim a popular victory, the popular vote option is just not all that great of an idea.

 

All of the law suits we saw in 2000 were based on laws passed after the election of 1876 which was a very similar situation. However, at that point, there was not even a shred of a legal procedure. Think that the Supreme court voted for Bush? You could make a technical case but they did follow the laws passed more than a century earlier because of that fuck up. In 1876, the “special commision” that was set up hastily voted for Hayes.

 

1872 showed us an even more bizarre case. Horace Greely won 43.8% of the popular vote and 66 electors. So there was no way that he could win. Then he up and died before the electoral votes were cast. His electors all went rogue.

 

None of them voted for Grant. Which would have been sensible in that by bot popular vote and electoral college, he was the automatic winner anyway. Most of them voted for the other minor candidates who got tiny percentages of the vote. Three of them voted for the corpse candidate.

 

1824 had four viable candidates, all from the same party and all with specific regional support. So nobody won the vote either way you slice it. If you go by popular vote, then Jackson would have won with his 41.3%. So technically, nobody won the election. It took congress months to sort the matter out with apparent victories for John Quincy Adams a couple of times along the way.

 

1800 was probably the worst of them all. There were five candidates from two parties. There was no national voting day, so voting did not end until seven months after it began. So by the time it came to hold the electoral college, everyone knew that Jefferson won the popular vote by 61.8%.

 

However, there was an under the table agreement that certain electors would not vote the way that they should. Adding to the chaos, the Democrat-Republican party failed to tell their electors of the situation and they cast the votes that they really ought to have. In addition, Georgia did not file a legal ballot.

 

So when it came time to actually count the votes, it was questionable whether Georgia's votes should be considered. Fortunately, the official vote counter at the time was the president pro tem of the senate. Unfortunately, that was Thomas Jefferson himself. If he did not count Georgia's irregular ballot, he would lose the election. If he did count it, considering the fuck up with the vote switching, he would have to produce an electoral tie.

 

Throwing all caution to the wind, he went ahead and counted them. As with 1824, it took congress months to sort the matter out.

 

So I am going to say that it stays in. Only because popular votes suck worse and the Westminster system is the alternative that would work best. BTW, Westminster is one where congress would sort the matter out after every election. Since that is a total fuck up every time we go through this, I think we can fix it better than ditching it.

 

The electoral college to me is far too maligned and misunderstood. People do not understand that the Constitution is anti-monopoly based. It was written so that the majority could not have absolute rule over the minority, or vise versa. The electoral college that allows for the 2000 election to happen is simply a "coin toss" in a close race. Voting was never intended under our Constitution to be absolute rule. EVERY branch of government, including the voter, is subject to the same oversight and consent. This outcome is serves more as an ideological reminder that we are not a nation of mob rule or absolute rule.

Most people don't even know that your Congress person who puts in that vote, DOES NOT have to vote the way their population voted. They do most of the time because if they don't they would not get re-elected. But there is no federal law in a presidential election mandating your Senator has to vote the way you voted in the booth.

The reason is simple, voting is a guide, not a dictatorial law. This is why we don't have direct voting, which would be nothing but mob dictatorship by vote. The concept of avise and consent and oversight and individual conscious gives us the principle of avoiding monopolies of power. This is why we have the electoral college.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


nude0007
atheist
nude0007's picture
Posts: 41
Joined: 2011-06-14
User is offlineOffline
ok, fine

 I've heard all my life that Texas only joined the union if they could have the  option to secede if they wanted.  While I agree that the rest of the US would probably not want to let them go easily, that WAS the agreement.  

Let's assume anyway that the rest of the US won't like it and would want to fight.  I still say that soon economic problems will be so severe it won't matter, but even if that turns out not to be the case, so what?  I am willing to fight for the country I want. Now, can we stop presenting arguments about whether or not anyone has a right to secede?  This is supposed to be about what if we formed our own state/country that is pro-atheist and discourages religion and thwarts its influence over society.  How about some positive feedback?  What would you like to see?  How would you make it? How could we make it a good society for rationalism and progressive towards science?

Electoral college: ok, maybe I am not all that clear on if it is good or bad.  It seems to thwart our votes, but as you say, that might be a good thing.  The majority is not necessarily right, and in a lot of cases it isn't.  I am still not sure the electoral college is a good, functional or even the most effective block to a majority run state.  I still say that we can have an internet voting system. There would be no need for recounts, as the vote would be tallied automatically as people voted, end results checked against how many people voted, and there would be no reason for recounts unless some sort of hacking was suspected, and it would have to be very good tampering to get through all the security.

Luminon, not only did I not follow your point, but I didn't understand almost everything you said.  It didn't seem to apply to anything discussed here.  I am not well read in politics, so it's probably just all way over my head.

How about it? Some positive ideas?  Even if you assume we (atheists) will eventually win out over theists, what do you imagine our country to be like then?  What do you hope to see?   I am basically postulating "What if we could make the atheist dominant state here and now?" I just used the confederate claim to push it off as a new and separate country rather than a sudden takeover of the current US govt..  If we just back it down to "what is it you would like to see happen?"  Do you have ideas you would like to see implemented?  How do you see them working?  Surely just minimalizing religious influence isn't all we want?  Or is it?


BenfromCanada
atheist
BenfromCanada's picture
Posts: 811
Joined: 2006-08-31
User is offlineOffline
Texas does not have the

Texas does not have the right to secede.

 

Anyway, why would you want to do what? Why would you want a separate atheistic country? As for asking how things would change if most Americans were atheist, well, swearing on the bible and publicly talking about god would be all but gone. Church attendance is almost none as it is, but it would go down and more churches would shut down. The bigots would need new reasons to hate gays, creationism would die and that's about the end of it.

 

Yes, minimalizing religious influence and having religion turn into the minority position (peacefully) is all I want. I mean, aside from a few other things that have more to do with my philosophical and political beliefs than my lack of a belief in any god.