Secession from the Union can only happen by violent revolution.


Today, citizens in 20 States over in the US have petitioned the White House’s ‘We Are The People’ site to secede from the Union, based on their continued bitterness that their preferred candidate-for-insanity didn’t win the election.
Amusingly, the secession petitions carry with them a quote from the Declaration:

“…Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and institute new Government…”

– Deriving their powers from the consent of the governed. Well, the governed just democratically chose not to give any power to your candidate. Deal with it. That’s democracy. The form of government has not become destructive to that end. You lost. Democracy doesn’t mean you must win, all the time. If you want to secede, because you lost the election, then you absolutely do not understand democracy or America. It really is amazing what a bunch of regressive idiots will do when a man with dark skin is in the White House.

It is interesting to me, that New York has a petition. It has a couple of thousand signatures so far. What a curious understanding of democracy. Their State voted Democrat. The majority of those in New York, are Democrat. So, if a vote was theoretically put to New York State legislature, based on the will of the people, it would lose. What would secessionists then say? Secede, but only the conservative areas of New York? It really is absurd reasoning… again.

They are unhappy that they have been democratically defeated. So, they’re calling for a new democracy. Because apparently that’s what democracy means. If you don’t win, no longer observe the rules of democracy. But call for a new democracy. Based entirely on you winning. Essentially, secede, until you win. Eventually it’ll come down to individual homes. And then their wife will vote against them. And so they’ll secede from the home.

Granted it’s a very small number of Americans that have actually signed the petition. Just to give you some perspective, my article titled Bad day for bigots has so far today received 11,327 views. The State of South Carolina’s petition for secession so far has 10,722 signatures. 4,679,230 people live in the State of South Carolina. So, that’s 0.22% of the population of South Carolina calling for secession. Not even half of 1%. And less than the amount of people who have viewed one article of mine, in less than 12 hours. If we take Texas, which has the most signatures for secession so far with 67,834, and we note that the population of Texas is currently 25,674,681, we see that a weak 0.26% of the Texan population; just over a quarter of 1%… calling for secession. So, a very small number, by anyone’s standards. Unlike this guy, who thinks it’s practically the entire population, and has curiously “never happened before”:

(Posting Tweets is becoming somewhat of a fun new game for me).

Judging from secession tweets currently occupying Twitter, it would seem that they are citing States Rights (that old chessnut) derived from the Tenth Amendment. The Tenth Amendment States:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

– The inference being, that the Federal government under Obama has wrestled too much power away from the States. Oddly, there weren’t too many calls for secession from right winged Americans when Reagan massively expanded Federal payroll, tripled the National Debt, raised taxes in ’82, ’83, ’84, and sold arms to Iran, all whilst covertly funding terrorists throughout Latin America. But I suppose that’s hypocrisy for you.

The Tenth Amendment is quite clear. But it is not the final say the Founders had on the matter of the supremacy of law in the US. Article 6 states:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

– Essentially, Federal law is supreme. State law does not override Federal law. Regardless of the ‘Constitution of Laws of any State’, Federal law is supreme. If Congress votes, and the President signs, and the judges see no unconstitutional problem with the law, then whatever bitter and angry ‘Confederates’ think about the law, it does not change the fact that they must abide by it. In the same way that whilst I dislike the changes the Conservative Party over here have implemented with regards the NHS…. I can’t suddenly call for the city of Leicester to secede from the UK. Well, I could… but i’d be wrong. My side of the argument lost the election in 2010. I have to accept that.

The great enlightenment thinkers that provided the US Constitution certainly realised that there may well be some people, after an election goes against them, that might demand secession. And so Article 1 Section 10 of the Constitution states:

“No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or Confederation. No state shall, without the consent of Congress, keep troops, or ships of war in times of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger.”

– Obviously a State, to succeed alone, would have to enter into treaty’s or alliances, or Confederation. Thus breaking the guide set out by the Constitution. The Founders anticipated secessionist nonsense. And they reiterated it AGAIN with Article 4 Section 3:

“Congress will make rules and regulations for territories and for property of the federal government.

– The Federal government owns the land. Specifically, Congress. Congress is empowered by the Constitution, and so cannot act outside of its power. Thus, any secession acted through Congress would be illegal and unconstitutional, rendering it meaningless.
As if that isn’t enough restrictions on right winged States-Rights advocates, then perhaps Article 1 Section 8 Clause 18, which garnered a lot of debate during its ratification process that including it in the Constitution would grant too much power to the Federal Government above the States. Hamilton and Madison argued for its inclusion. And it got included.

The Congress shall have Power – To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

– Hamilton used this clause to defend his Bank of America (arguably the biggest centralisation of power in US history).

States, through their representatives to Congress, give up certain State powers when they vote to ratify certain Federal Laws. Those laws that haven’t been given up to Congress, stay within the remit of the States. That is my reading of the entire subject of States Rights. Talk of secession is not only illegal and unconstitutional; it is based on a very simplistic and flawed reading of the Constitution and the motives of the Founders in particular. More than that; it is based on the undemocratic hysterics of “our candidate didn’t win, so we don’t recognise the outcome”.

These people, the very same people who insist on telling everyone what a ‘real’ American is. If you’re Atheist, you’re not a ‘real’ American. If you’re socialist, you’re not a ‘real’ American. If you support gay marriage or abortion, you’re not a ‘real’ American….. are now showing just how American they are, by demanding to leave the Union, simply because they very democratic principles that America was built on, did not turn up the result they wanted. They should be ashamed.

If they feel disenfranchised, then become politically active. Run for office. If your position isn’t gaining enough support……. maybe that’s because people don’t agree with it. Again, that’s democracy. There’s only so many times you can secede from all forms of social governance, before you’re on your own…. living in a Hobbesian hell hole. Grunting, as you chase your prey, with a spear. The point being, eventually, your point of view is not going to be the most popular. This is how democracy works.

I imagine a seceded Tea Party Confederacy would be pretty hellish. Walmart and Starbucks would be the two parties fighting for power. Leave your house and walk out onto the road? Pay for it! Everything is private! Including the roads you walk on. Don’t have police insurance? Well then your property will be robbed, tough. The land of the free! Unless you’re gay. Which would obviously be outlawed, as a sin against the word of the Lord. The land of the free! Where you have the democratic right to vote…. for a conservative…. You get the idea.

Now, obviously the Constitution sets out how States must act when in Union. There is no legal framework for secession, nor is secession legal. But, once seceded (violently), the States obviously wouldn’t have to abide by US law. The problem for them is, they absolutely cannot secede. Their legislatures are bound by oath to fully support the rules set out within it, and the land belongs to the Federal Government. They therefore, can only secede after declaring war.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution

– James Madison, writing in the Federalist Papers Number 44 progresses this point:

The members of the federal government will have no agency in carrying the State constitutions into effect. The members and officers of the State governments, on the contrary, will have an essential agency in giving effect to the federal Constitution.

– State officers must abide by the Constitution. They are compelled by its powers. Therefore, given that the Constitution limits States rights, and places Federal law as supreme, and compels representatives in Congress and State Legislatures to abide by it, by oath, it follows that secession cannot be brought about by legal nor peaceful means. The only way these people can secede, is violent overthrow of their State legislature. And to do that, simply because your candidate lost an election, is abhorrent.

I wrote my political thesis on President Lincoln’s relationship to the pro-slavery movement coming out of the South. And what stands out more than anything, as it does today, is that hysterical right winged lunacy pushed Lincoln into a vehement abolish-slavery position that he absolutely did not support in the run up to his first election win. He simply expressed his intention to prevent the spread of slavery westward, thereby keeping Congress 50% free, 50% slave. The Confederacy did not just want to preserve their right to hold human beings as slaves, they wanted to expand it as far as possible. Lincoln was worried that slavery would be Nationalised. He did not wish to outlaw slavery in the South, until pushed to it, by a manic, overly paranoid Confederacy. An over paranoid Confederacy, that whilst completely discredited, is still in part using the same hysterical tactics it used 150 years ago.

The reason they wish to secede this time is simple; they didn’t win an election.

13 Responses to Secession from the Union can only happen by violent revolution.

  1. Aakash Japi says:

    I agree completely. This secession is an absolute farce, driven by bigotry and resentment. Southerners lost an election, and now, they’re going to secede. It’s absolute idiocy. It’s even more nonsensical that anyone even has the audacity to claim that the “constitution” supported secession. Wasn’t one Civil War enough to prove that? Wasn’t that why the Constitution replaced the Articles? To ensure supremacy of the federal government over the states? States rights are all well and good, but they cannot stand against the public welfare, which is exactly what they are doing now.

    Beyond that fact, I find it of utmost arrogance that they (or anyone) can claim to know what a “true American” is. America is a melting pot: a nation of immigrants. We are the nation of new perspectives, new change, new innovation, without the manacles of tradition. In our nation’s largest harbor, we proclaim proudly “I lift my lamp besides the Golden Door!” Yet we still have rampant xenophobia and racism, and half our country still believes in segregationist principles.

    And this may seem rather idealistic, but wasn’t secularism a main focus of the Founders? In the treaty of Tripoli, they clearly stated that American government was a full and wholly separate institution from religion. But today, we have people advocating for a government based on “God’s” principles. Disregarding the obvious fallacy in that (who are they to know God’s principles? Does God even exist?), how is that even allowed as a justification? There is no logic, no thought, nothing. Just an assertion made on unusable evidence.

    For a nation “of the people, by the people, and for the people,” we sure have gone far astray.

  2. JJ says:

    Aakash, I agree the constitution does not support secession, but it also does not outlaw it. If you study the history of secession, it is legal through the 10th amendment for the reason that it is not specifically made illegal in the constitution. Another strong indicator that secession is legal is that congress actually took steps to amend the constitution to specifically make it illegal. Now I am not supporting secession, I am just simply trying to explain on why it is not illegal in the constitution. Furthermore, the argument that many people make for Texas V. White is also void from a legal standpoint because no mention of the constitution was actually used when deciding upon the case.

  3. bunkerville says:

    In the meantime, enjoy the price of gas. Energy? Oh windmills. Forget the pipeline and the thousands of jobs. Maybe that is why a few Americans would like to call it a day. They can’t afford to see family and friends next week.

  4. And the answer to that is to give millionaires tax breaks?

  5. Roger says:

    Perhaps the fact that the essayist here lives in a monarchy, certain considerations may not occur to him naturally. The legal sovereign being a person, rather than the mass of persons in the polity, such changes as these secessionists detect have occurred in their polity might not weigh so much on him. Nonetheless these principles apply to a greater or lesser extent, whatever the nature of society and governance:

    Where any community exists, where any community forms (in whatever manner speaking, historically), there must underlie it certain “givens.” It is upon these “givens,” that there exists communal loyalty, the mutual loyalty between and amongst the citizens. The original loyalty in this community was to an Anglo-American identity, locally-known (e.g., the State communities), with certain traditional mores (e.g., Christianity, communal and familial leadership by men) running through it. This identity undergirded the community. It was what was meant by an “American” community with a citizenry of fellows. Over time, and with the machinations of those who were disloyal to this older compact—i.e., those who had “seceded” from the original communal loyalty in their hearts—the community changed. Today, the older loyalty has clearly been rejected, morphed, or thrown aside, one way or another.

    This has effectively sundered the bonds of community for literally millions of Americans. It is akin to the situation of natives who awake to find that a foreign government, a different state, had taken over their land. This kinship is actually absolute, inasmuch as the people are sovereign here. If so, they are the government. Who they are, is much more important than who the government is.

    So if the American Republican Party wants to ask, “what went wrong?” The answer: Nothing. The government reflects the populace. It is not difficult to cognize this situation as one of an invasion over time. It is as if part of the community has been abducted by aliens and replaced by another. Invasion of the Bodysnatchers.

    I have no duty to anyone in some particular geography just because he happens to be of the species homo sapiens. If today’s community rejects and replaces yesterday’s community, I say “fine.” But it does not extend to me. If this community expands its loyalty as equal citizenry to any ethnic group on the planet, weighs feminism and atheism as part and parcel of the community, much less extends equal human dignity to sodomites; I will not be a part of such a community, practically-speaking, save by force. And here is one aspect which this republic can do NOTHING about—I will never in my heart be loyal to it or accord it moral consideration. So we will secede. One way or another, we have seceded.
    Viva la Revolution!

  6. “Perhaps the fact that the essayist here lives in a monarchy, certain considerations may not occur to him naturally.”
    – Oh what an incredible statement to start a pointless barrage of bullshit. Eloquent bullshit. But bullshit nonetheless.
    Firstly, I live under a constitutional monarchy. The monarch has very little power, rarely exercises any sort of power, and is by and large a tradition and a tourist attraction rather than an active part of the political process. The system is a Parliamentary democracy. Not a monarchy. This isn’t 16th Century feudal England (though judging by your later statements, you still exist in that time). So given that the premise was massively flawed and simplistic, the conclusion fails miserably. “Certain considerations” that you set out, do occur to me naturally. But they are so intensely disgusting, out-dated, irrational, baseless and bigoted that I reject them.
    Secondly, I live under a Conservative government. I despise everything they stand for. I didn’t vote for them. But I am a supporter of democracy. And my side lost the argument at the last election. I therefore understand that I can’t throw my toys out of the pram, like a screaming child, and call for my house to secede from the UK. I support democracy. I am consistent in that support. Whether I like the outcome or not. You on the other hand, are not a fan of democracy. You want an extreme conservative, anti-modern, anti-science, anti-human decency dictatorship based on Theocratic principles rooted firmly in the 1940s. Nothing less.

    The next few paragraphs of yours can be essentially summed up thusly:
    Any form of social progress, including the rejection of out dated traditions, and scientific, social and economic advancement, the context of 21st Century liberty rather than 18th century is ‘Unamerican’. Quite why you believe America was always supposed to remain socially anchored to the 18th Century is beyond me. But nonetheless, that is essentially your point. Anything or anyone that disagrees with your ridiculously regressive and short sighted understanding is part of some ‘invasion’ and ‘unamerican’.

    You do this, in your second paragraph by oddly linking Christianity to being ‘American’. As if this is fundamental to citizenship. (And apparently,rejecting feminism…. that made me laugh). By this standard, Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson cannot be considered American. Franklin, a student of Socrates, was as close to Atheist as that century had, and Jefferson, a Deist with no love for Christianity. The very essence of the political settlement called the United States of America, was to take religion out of the equation with regard the State. This is the genius of the Founders. They happen to be far more forward thinking, and progressive than you are, 250 years later. You are somehow claiming that the State and religion are inherently linked. They aren’t. Haven’t been for centuries. One day, you may learn to stop sulking and deal with that. I am surprised you didn’t add a paragraph arguing the case for slavery.

    “If this community expands its loyalty as equal citizenry to any ethnic group on the planet, weighs feminism and atheism as part and parcel of the community, much less extends equal human dignity to sodomites; I will not be a part of such a community, practically-speaking, save by force.”
    – Is perhaps one of the biggest diatribes of ‘woe-is-me, my ridiculously regressive views are no longer acceptable, and my very very narrow spectrum of what is decent and correct is no longer credible’ – that I have ever heard. The narrow World that you inhabit, is rooted to the past. It ignores all social and scientific advancement. It is based on Biblical bullshit (but very selective Biblical bullshit, as is usual with irrational Christians) …. I.E… use of the term ‘sodomites’. It isn’t an invasion, as you suggest. It is just, the World has advanced since 1950. You haven’t. Stop blaming the World, and actually grow the fuck up.
    Secede by yourself. The World is much better off without bigoted, 1940s prejudice, a rejection of all human advancement and a complete misunderstanding of the way liberty and democracy work.
    You say “I will not be part of such a community”. That’s no big loss. I am certainly on the side of progress, than on the side of unintelligible (but again, eloquent) intense bullshit born out of ignorance and bigotry. The community is not the static entity you so desperately crave.

    You are not democratic. You are extreme conservative who cannot abide anything else. I stick to my original assertion that the far-right are the most despotic, totalitarian and anti-democratic mob of idiots America has known. They want everything one way; their way. Anything else is ‘unamerican’. What a crock of shit.

    I may live under a constitutional monarchy. But I live in the 21st Century. You haven’t yet entered the 18th.

  7. Roger S. says:

    You are well educated I see. Some points of elaboration and correction are in order.

    1. I am given to suspect (wrongly I hope) that if your government were indeed a real monarchy, or a “theocracy” (as you might style it), you would feel no compulsion to obey it. You might feel no inhibition to “secede” in such a circumstance. Command of king or bishop would be irrelevant to someone of this mindset.
    But we are talking about democracies of course. So my question is, why should command of mere numbers be decisive of anything, particularly if those numbers have no claim of kinship?
    I do not support democracy. And I do not vote, at least not in U.S. federal elections. The fact that a governance is a democracy does not clothe its decisions under a pale of infallibility, nor does it impose some sort of transcendent duty upon me to obey. Always underlying the vaunted deus ex machine of democracy is the question of—who is the democracy? Who will be allowed to count? Will some be forced to accord equal consideration to certain others in the counting, and if so, on what grounds?
    What is very ironic is that democracy is only crowed over by democrats, when it delivers a certain end. For example, of late again and again when a vote has been won to curtail the choice of baby-killers, or to properly punish perversity, or to prevent certain people from imposing themselves into one’s schools by force, democracy has been consistently overturned by the state (aka the regime courts). As numerous U.S. Supreme Court justices have stated: “There are certain decisions too important to be consigned to the ballot box.”
    Well, well, well.
    Only a fool plays ‘heads you win, tails I lose’ forever. In any event, over the last fifty years, enemies within the walls have worked tirelessly until there is now an immigrant infestation holding citizenship cards and votes here. Why in the Hell should I care about the vote in such a circumstance?

    2. You are mistaken on one point. I do not consider “advancement [in] the context of 21st Century liberty rather than 18th century [..] ‘Unamerican.’ I consider it quintessentially American. To the extent that I was in fact describing a historical progress and talking of a “take over,” I was merely reflecting on the general attitude of the average secessionist.
    For my part, the fact is, despite my three century plus ancestry here (not counting the Amerindians), I reject this entire damnable, so-called American experiment, from 1776 onward. Tom Jefferson quite deserved to be hanged. Ironically enough, I am entirely of the Tory (not D. Cameron et al., but the ancient form) philosophy in that regard. That is, your side was right, and my side was wrong. Ç’est la vie.
    Such rejection stems from the reality that, from 1776 onward, there was an ever-expanding kernel here of defining “American” as an identity constituted by the holding of certain ideals. A proposition nation.
    Well, they aren’t my ideals, and that isn’t my identity.
    Nor do I personally engage in that remarkable fantasy that “America is a Christian country.” With you, I say that its founding, in different ways, smacks greatly of the defiance of Christendom. Respecting Christianity (and “Bible-believing” is not Christianity, by the way), my fathers are those of the Church, and Constantine the Great, and not the so-called Founding Fathers.

    3. You overreach in characterizing my position as one demanding a certain state of affairs. Not so. I do not say this, nor do I mean it. I have no right that any particular kind of community exist. What I wonder at are those who claim a right that my kind of community NOT exist.
    In essence you call anyone who does not hold your Humanist values an idiot. That is, they are idiots who attach themselves (usually a priori) to a set of values not amenable to testing under the rubrics of the Scientific Method. Quite right. Thou art wise, Oh prophet!
    The question that must… arise… however, is, should this methodology not also apply to the great Humanist value? Not so, sayest thou, egalitarian Man is an aspiration for evaluation, not a fact to be questioned by mere mortals.
    That is, the assertion that individual human beings have dignity—and nothing else in the whole universal, whether fact or value, is knowable—is just that, an assertion.
    You are not wise. You are willful. You want certain things (e.g., equal human dignity), and petulantly act as if all should self-evidently have a similar desire. All men should want as you do, and anyone who does not, shall be rooted out of existence.
    So here is the thing: Contrary to your supposition, I do not woe-as-me. I have no right to the community of such-and-such. To the extent that an invasion analogy was used, it was just that, an analogy. I state only what I will do, and to what I will consent, if consent is of any importance.
    And you just rage that the Great Human Rainbow Yum is not my value. In the final analysis I can tolerate you, so long as I can exclude you; but you cannot stand anyone else exist at all. Not Mohammedan, not racist, not king’s musketeer.
    There is certainly no guarantee on high for a world that will not degenerate. It has certainly gone to dung since 1950, and before—although some like to call it progress. If it is the self-serving, faggot-loving, atheist world that you love, by all means have at it.
    Just keep in mind, you too will one day die. And then…
    And then, maybe nothing. Maybe you’re right. Nothing.
    But if so, I don’t know why you fucking care so much as to bother to write anything, or bemoan tyranny, or to do much else in getting “involved.” Perhaps it’s all an aesthetic? 🙂

  8. Roger S. says:

    If Dred Scott v. Sampson was right–which it undoubtedly was–then wasn’t Lincoln’s entire platform unconstitutional, thereby justifying secession at his election? Moreover, if a State can secede from the Articles of Confederation–which is what they did, in effect–then why can they not secede from the Constitution?
    The State governments are responsible to their State citizenries. The States do not exist to support the Union. The Union exists to support them. They preceded it after all.

  9. One long babble of bullshit, again. It is just the ramblings of a bitter old bigot rooted to the 18th century. Regardless of how drawn out you try to make your argument, or the language you use, it is laced with contradictions hidden beneath its thinly veiled far-right, massively dictatorial hatefilled woe-is-me rhetoric.

    I am not sure what you mean by “faggot-loving”. But I shall presume you mean that I support the right for two people of the same gender who are deeply in love, not to be vilified and degraded by some disgusting out of date bigots who hold up the Bible as some sort of moral code, whilst curiously ignoring the verses they do not particularly like. Yes. That’s what I support. And totally proud of it. Rather a ‘faggot lover’ than a bigot-lover.

    The more liberal a country gets, the less you like it. You are despotic. The more free thinkers exist, the less you like it. You are Theocratic. You want to control the way a society is run, based on your beliefs, and nothing else. Regardless of how you make yourself out to be the victim of a permissive society that doesn’t allow your kind of regressive prejudice to be the order of things, you are a totalitarian, dangerous, bigot.

    The community you demand (whether you think you’re promoting some sort of perverse freedom or not) is sexist, it is homophobic, is entirely based on Biblical principles, and it is despotic, it is a nightmare. I am suggesting the World has progressed, and the majority of those living in Western liberal democracies, completely reject your bullshit, because regimes like that have existed, and have been fucking appalling. In fact, despotic, homophobic, sexist regimes still exist, and are fucking appalling. You would fit right in, because your bigotry (faggot-loving, seriously?) is fucking appalling.

    “What I wonder at are those who claim a right that my kind of community NOT exist.”
    – Where should it exist? What does it look like? What if people disagree with you on certain principles? Who runs it? It sounds like unless a state of a community is EXACTLY as you wish it to be (again; homophobic, sexist, dominated by the putrid nature of Christianity), you will complain, that it’s being taken over, because your incredibly regressive sense of values, isn’t being respected to its final conclusion. Like you said, you don’t particularly support democratic principles, so how is this community of yours to be run? Who has the final say? Who proposes laws?

    The reason your sort of ridiculous society doesn’t exist, is because it is on the fringes, occupying the minds of a few far-right nutjobs, that has very very little support. You are not being victimised. Your views are just a disgrace. 🙂

    I ask you, what would be the punishment, for my gay friends? They’re wonderful people. Very giving, very friendly, very welcoming, never hurt anyone. What should happen to them, under your Theocratic rule, oh Great One?

    I absolutely claim a right that your kind of community NOT exist. Because it has horrid flaws, it is dangerous, it is despotic, it preaches intolerance as its reason for being (what if a member of your Theocratic hell hole has a child, who turns out to be gay? Will you throw him out? Perhaps all the bigots in the area, lead by you – and probably the Westboro Baptist Church – will spit on him in the street? What if he’s happy living with his parents? Will they be thrown out?) Don’t act like you’re being persecuted, because you have views that humanity out-grew 200 years ago. You feel your right to be a discriminatory prick, is being discriminated against. Forgive me for not jumping to your defence on this one.

    “But if so, I don’t know why you fucking care so much as to bother to write anything, or bemoan tyranny, or to do much else in getting “involved.”
    – Surely you’re not suggesting that the only reason to care, is the promise of reward or punishment in an afterlife? Your suggestion is, that I should only care, if there is an afterlife waiting for me? What kind of awful moral system is that? You care, for reward, and nothing else? Surely the promise of justice in an afterlife, negates your responsibility to care in this world? Your point, like every other point you’ve made, is laden with flaws, and is entirely ridiculous.

  10. Roger S. says:

    Blah, blah, blah. I think you’ve established that you don’t share my values. Surely the world, particularly the Western world, has degenerated (“progressed”).
    This is the nightmare.
    You claim a right that my community, however framed, must not exist. On what basis? Why is yours sacrosanct, and entitled to world domination? I do not demand a certain community whatever you say. It is YOU who demand that decisions be made solely in accordance with your individual-human-dignity-as-god values. I simply say that these are your values and not mine.
    Mine should not exist because it has horrid flaws (in the eyes of futiledemocracy)? Because it is totalitarian and despotic (your entire screed makes this a hypocritical claim)? Because it is dangerous? It is only dangerous to the entitlement claim of world totalitarian Humanist domination. Because it is regressive? You’re damn right it is.
    The flaws and internal contradictions are with you.
    Don’t act like you’re being persecuted. All I claim is the right not to accept certain persons as equal members of my community. By what right have you to force them where they are not wanted? Upon what basis do you claim that I have a duty to accept them?
    It is you who impose, don’t fool yourself. You will not tolerate any other world. I can certainly tolerate that a Great Human Rainbow Yum community in the world; it just won’t be mine.
    As to the hereafter… I only claim that there is a right and wrong in the hereafter. You can “care” about anything you wish. Just don’t think your cares are universal to all. If you think that the only right or wrong is that which feels good to the individual, on what basis can anyone claim that bigotry is wrong? Come on now, you’re the free thinker. This is a mystery that is in truth a paradox and what is truly ridiculous.
    And just what if “progress” reverses itself over time? You can damn well bet that I will teach my values to my progeny, which is not insubstantial, and you will die out. Then Liberals like yourself will cry, and call out for secession.
    Bigoted and proud.

  11. “This is the nightmare”
    – A nightmare for bitter old idiots with a penchant for theocratic homophobic dictatorship , is most definitely progress for the rest of us.

    “As to the hereafter… I only claim that there is a right and wrong in the hereafter. ”
    – Again with the contradictions. You have just spent three comments telling me how feminism, Atheism and homosexuality are some great evil. Or “faggot-loving” and “nightmare” as you so tenderly put it. Which suggests you think they’re wrong. That being a gay, female, non-believer is enough to make your head explode in a fountain of irrational vitriolic hate. That being those things, is wrong, and should be punished. You are advocating removing civil rights from people, simply because they do not follow your very narrow understanding of what is decent and correct. Let’s call that understanding, “Roger-ism”.

    In the ‘community’ that I live, I accept that you have fucking disgusting principles. I accept that you may pro-create and inject your offspring with vile views. I accept your right to do that. I exclude myself from mixing with people like you. I do not wish to silence you. I believe you have as much a right as any one, in expressing your views. I just don’t want you anywhere near my children. You on the other hand, believe anyone who isn’t a little despotic, theocratic turd, should not be a part of some odd little community you seemingly wish to create, in which you exist….. by yourself.

    “If you think that the only right or wrong is that which feels good to the individual, on what basis can anyone claim that bigotry is wrong?”
    – I claim what is wrong, is that which sorts to diminish or completely destroy the rights of others through prejudice, bigotry, or irrational claims on morality from a putrid book of fairy tales. None of your rights are being taken away, by a gay couple marrying, or by an Atheist not believing in Jesus, or by a woman asking for equal pay. If you want to control your household by selective Biblical standards, as long as you’re not restricting anyone else’s rights, by all means, go ahead.

    “All I claim is the right not to accept certain persons as equal members of my community.”
    – Okay. Don’t go to a gay wedding. Don’t fuck a man. Don’t associate with gay people. Discriminate all you like, privately. Be a bigoted old irrational cunt. Problem solved. The beauty of this, is you have a choice. No one is telling you that you must lay in bed with a gay guy. No one is telling you that you musn’t hold irrational views. You’re perfectly entitled to those views. The problem is, you do not wish the same right of choice, on homosexual people. You have already asserted that they should be punished. You are therefore restricting the rights of others (you wish to restrict the right to love. The most dictatorial of all principles) to pursue happiness on their terms. The right for two men to get married, does nothing to restrict any right of yours. To suggest otherwise, is intensely pathetic. You are, as I said before, a despotic, bigoted, regressive, irrational, far-right, hateful, Theocratic idiot, full of contradictions, dressed up in slightly more creative language.

  12. Roger S. says:

    Ah… but here is where you err. I did not exactly tell you that XYZ were some great evil. Certainly that was implied, but ultimately it was an irrelevant attribute to the subject. The only salient point was that I did not like XYZ. And this was the genius of secession, separating oneself so that one could claim a community for one’s own.
    You on the other hand very definitely I thought, declared that my preferences were “evil,” and thus practically intolerable. I questioned you on this, and the most you could reply was the amusing question-begging response of “to diminish or completely desotry the rights of other, etc… etc…” as evil. You understand the concept of tautology, I would assume?
    But I was wrong. Let me back up: I have never claimed that two men cannot get “married.” They can do as they choose. I just am under no obligation to accept them. It is not civil rights “removed.” Civil rights are granted by civil society. In this case, not granted.

    I think, if you consider for a moment, that everything you have recklessly asserted is based upon your underlying belief that human individuals, just for being as such, are clothed with some sacrosanct set of rights and dignities that all are bound to acknowledge and respect. That is your religion, not mine.

    And let us be clear, it is you who are on the whole far more despotic therefore, and hateful. The fact is the vast majority of Humanity both now and back in time has held objective evaluations, of whatever kind (perhaps they required homosexual practices in some cultures and communities), that overarched any “rights” the individuals had. And you hate them for it. You hate Christianity. You hate Islam. You hate segregationists, Enoch Powell, Ian Paisley, as well as the IRA. You hate the Greek republics, Ur, the Han dynasty, the Incas, the Masaii. Your entire mind is filled with hate and desire to destroy everything you do not like.
    Mine is not.
    You seem to hate everyone but your wog boyfriend.

    But hey, you’ve conceded all I ask: “I exclude myself from mixing with people like you.”

    Oh I was wondering why you keep yammering on about the Bible. You certainly don’t think I’m a Protestant do you? Oh but kudos on your Church of England. Congratulations on one thing right recently.

    I wonder are there any priestesses considering seceding?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: