JUNE/ JULY 2013

      Many who have led rebellions and revolutions of any scale in the past have had to grapple with the quandary of what that tipping point is.  Our own founders acknowledged in the 1776 Declaration of Independence that a time comes for “one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another.”  They acknowledged that “whenever any form of government becomes destructive” to “certain unalienable rights,” then, logically, “it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and institute new government.”  All of this is to say that the question of revolution against or secession from one’s current government is not new, and our founders also wrestled with identifying the tipping point of separation.        And, we are certainly not the first ones recently to think about secession.  By November 14, 2012, just eight days after the result of the November 6 presidential election was in, hundreds of thousands of citizens from all fifty states had signed secession petitions that had been submitted to the White House’s petition website.  These petitions included one from Texas signed by 125,746 people, Louisiana signed by 38,991, Florida with 37,014, and Georgia with 33,828.  Only 25,000 signatures were needed to merit an official response from the White House, and when an official response came on January 11, petitions from several other states had acquired signatures well into the twenty-thousand-person range, including petitions from Arizona (23,987), Arkansas (23,506), Colorado (22,720), Indiana (21,932), and Missouri (20,562) (numbers taken from Wikipedia).  Similar efforts take place after every presidential election, but not nearly to this degree.  The White House responded to and effectively shut down these petitions in early January, but I suspect recent Washington scandals would motivate thousands more to sign each of these petitions if they had the chance.  The point is, people are already thinking secession, and many assert that we are already past the tipping point. 

      I have been especially interested in allusions to secession by Rick Perry, the governor of the state of Texas, where I lived for five years.  At an April 15, 2009 Tea Party rally, Perry mentioned the tension between unity and separation: “We’ve got a great union. There’s absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that” (see the CBS news story here).  He maintains a desire to keep the United States intact, but acknowledges that there is a tipping point where Texans, and Americans in general, may want to separate from Washington.

      After all, what is Washington anymore?  It doesn’t take a right-wing nut-job to verify that our country is run by a small minority of far-left liberals, whose agenda doesn’t even characterize many democrats, and certainly has no affiliation with most moderates, independents and republicans.  Thus, as we will address more in the second half of this article, the issue is not just sending more of “our” people to Washington.  Rather, a time may come when Washington does thumb its nose at America so much that we have to abandon the corruption and big-government mentality of D.C. entirely. 

      Thus, we are not even talking about seceding from America as much as we are talking about seceding from a government that has abandoned Founding and Constitutional principles.  Logistically speaking, a state or group of states that secedes would need a new name, currency, etc.  But those who secede can bring the real America with them and can preserve its highest ideals, which are rapidly retreating from Washington.  These ideals include the spirit of individual liberty, Judeo-Christian values, free-market principles, financial responsibility and the desire for a limited and accountable government.  It is these ideals that we continue to adhere to, and it is these ideals we will take with us if secession becomes necessary.   

    For the second half of this “academic exercise” about secession, please see Part 2 “Measuring the Metrics” below.  

    The painting above of the Founders is by Junius Brutus Stearns (1856) 

BROWNCOAT BAY: Great Firefly Moments – “At Last, We Can Retire”

      This installment of “Great Firefly Moments” comes toward the beginning of the movie Serenity.  Last time I attended CSTS, wonderfully executed by the Atlanta Browncoats, I appreciated anew the richness of Serenity.  But I saw another side of a quick quip toward the beginning of the film that perhaps held more meaning than I had previously realized. 

      While Captain Mal, Zoe and Jayne are robbing a trading post on a rim planet our protagonists open a safe only to find, apparently, that there is nothing in it.  Zoe’s pricelessly sarcastic response to Mal is drier than a martini: “At last, we can retire, give up this life of crime.”

      That is why the question may not be merely about getting a new administration in the White House, or getting a different party in control of either of the chambers of Congress.  And the problem, for the most part, is not the system that our Founders and Framers were advocating.  Rather, the problem is that many in Washington no longer adhere to moral or Constitutional principles at all!  They demonstrate minimal concern for individual liberties and states’ rights.  They are primarily concerned with amassing more power and influence to Washington, and the above list of scandals and problems illustrates the manifestation of that deplorable, un-American philosophy.  So here’s the question of metrics: How many more examples of ineptitude and corruption must occur before any or all of the fifty states decide that we must sever our relationship with one city that is destructively intoxicated by its own influence?       Other metrics focus specifically on economic issues.  While we want to idealize our Founders and Framers, we must at least acknowledge that much of their concern with British overreach in the American colonies had economic roots, especially when it came to production, trade and taxation.  We, too, have many economic concerns about our government; it has far exceeded its Constitutionally-limited powers such that it now bails out companies, rewards the laziness of many citizens, funds environmental agendas (many of which are quite dubious), and provides weapons to both sides of the unending Israel vs. Arab conflicts.

      There is a price tag for a government that wants to position itself as the nation’s babysitter and that makes itself the sugar daddy of a global welfare state.  By way of illustration, we have all had to deal with the economics of purchasing a new car.  Because our current vehicle is old and worn, it becomes less effective for achieving the purposes for which we originally purchased it.  At some point, the cost of maintaining it exceeds the price and benefits of purchasing a new one.  Similarly, at some point the price tag of an over-extended and power-hungry government so exceedingly outweighs the value of that government, that its states and citizens recognize that funding it is no longer in their best interests.  At that point, they determine that it is worth the cost and effort they may pay to remove themselves from underneath that government and establish a new one.

      So, here are some money kinds of questions: How much higher should our national debt go?  How many more taxes should we be forced to pay?  How much more of our money needs to get funneled to foreign dictators and their war machines?  These are simple secession questions put in terms of economic metrics that nobody is taking the time to consider. 

      There is a price tag for this current government both in terms of financial cost but also in terms of the cost of personal freedoms.  Government intrusion takes place in a frightening variety of ways, and the more that government intrudes, the more it wants to intrude.  Again, this is not a Republican vs. Democrat issue: our federal government is comprised both of those who want to extend government’s political tendrils into state and personal liberties, and also of those who allow the first group do so.  How many more civil liberties need to be taken away before Americans deny the federal government the power to intrude?  How much longer before we recognize that tyrannical federal overreach no longer reflects the America that we remember from the past or want for the future?

      At some point, the question becomes intensely personal one.  How much is each citizen willing to do either to fight for a better America, or to fight for the right to establish a better country based on true American principles?  Or we could put it another way: How much longer should we fear a government that acts without fear of its people?  When does the frustration of Americans overcome our fear of the consequences of trying to establish a new government that does fear and respect its people?  Secession and rebellion are rarely pleasant as U.S. history clearly demonstrates; hopefully we are a long way off from taking up arms.  Violent revolution is a last resort.  Yet many people throughout history were so convinced of the need to secede and rebel that they determined that their individual lives were worth the benefits that others would receive from their sacrifice.

      In close proximity to the Fourth of July holiday, it is important to revisit the question that was so hotly debated over 200 years ago.  The Founders asked questions of cost, risk and tipping point. While in our own day, we may have the luxury to debate the issue academically, it is worth doing so, before the problem suddenly becomes less academic. 

ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD: Bad Arguments of the Existence of God

      We have surveyed older “classical” arguments for the existence of God as well as some newer arguments.  As we have frequently said, these arguments do not scientifically prove that God exists, but demonstrate the plausibility of his existence to a high degree.  Additionally, they do not verify distinctively Christian tenets.  That is, they do not speak to Trinitarianism, the inspiration and infallibility of the Christian Bible, or the incarnation or substitutionary propitiation of Christ.  However, these arguments do verify the reasonability of God’s existence.  As such, they can challenge the swelling atheism of our day and can be used to steer people toward the reasonability and exclusivity of Christianity. 

      Of course, there are many arguments for the existence of God that simply should not be used.  They sound spiritual, they certainly have Biblical roots, and they make those who already believe in God feel fluffy about their beliefs; however, they do not objectively validate God’s existence.  They are either circular arguments, or they are too thin to be helpful, or they can just as easily affirm the other side as they do ours!

      One such category of arguments pertains to the creation vs. evolution debate, which of course, centers around the existence or non-existence of God as Creator.  For instance, it is argued that the earth is just the perfect distance from the sun.  If we were any farther, life on earth would freeze, and if any closer, we would fry (see, for example, #1 in Marilyn Adamson’s article “Is There a God”). 

      I don’t even have to put myself in the place of an atheist or an evolutionist to point out why this oft-repeated argument for God’s existence is silly.  The detractor merely replies that we would, by definition, not have been able to survive on a planet that was inhospitable to our existence.  In fact, the evolutionist would predict exactly that: many species that did exist (or may have existed) no longer do (or never did) exist because they did not adapt to the conditions of our planet the way existing species did.  Thus, the fact that our world is perfect, or at least suitable, for sustaining our existence does not automatically confirm the existence of God.  In Adamson’s later discussion about the DNA in cells she similarly asserts, and I concur, that DNA was created by God in a certain way to promote life and functionality.  However, a detractor can simply argue that DNA evolved that way, and genetic traits that were not functional died out in favor of more resilient traits. These arguments can be used by both sides, and therefore, they don’t verify any uniquely theistic convictions. 

      Just to reaffirm: I believe that every species on earth was created thousands of years ago (not billions) by a deliberate and powerful Creator God, specifically, the God of the Christian Bible.  And while I do not believe that any species can change into another species, I do accept that each species was created with the ability to adapt and adjust to the many environmental oddities that occur in a fallen world.  I prefer the case made by the Intelligent Design people because their arguments point to the necessity of an intelligent Creator.  However, these arguments about the size of the earth, its distance from the sun, or its suitability for life do not verify anything.  Rather, these points allow atheists and evolutionists to feel that we are lending credence to their convictions, as well.