16 Responses to “Christian Exodus to South Carolina”

1. think Says:
   August 8th, 2005 at 10:50 pm

   “And why is their plan so unsettling to the rest of us?” -Robin?

   This broad statement seems to reveal quite a bias… is it a lapse of discretion, or the direction this broadcast is heading?

   Because Christianity pervades our history, many Americans assume they know what Christ and his followers are all about. Christ-ianity is perhaps the most misunderstood faith in the US… if we don’t understand Christians’ behavior, that should be a red flag that we don’t understand their culture and values.

   You might begin by humanizing the “right� as you so gently did the extremists and “Muslims in Europe� last month. (BTW, that was the most valuable show to date IMHO… kudos!)

2. allison Says:
   August 8th, 2005 at 11:43 pm

   “And why is their plan so unsettling to the rest of us?�

   think may be right: we’re afraid of what we don’t understand. And as I read the pre-interview notes, I am intrigued by the fact that these are anti-war Christians and that Burnell talks about the states that supported Kerry being able to establish laws that reflect their beliefs.

   This all gets at the tension between states’ rights/independence and the concept of a unified country or culture. What do we all think the reach of the federal government should be? At what point do we cease to be one country and become a new Europe?

   Perhaps we are too big to be one country. How can you legislate things like abortion and marriage laws across such a large population and geography? How much of the tension over these things is simply healthy democracy? How much of it leads to war-like animosity and the generation of fear and hatred?

   These groups are clever. They are going beyond the “intentional community” model that we’ve seen to date. It is difficult to create an intentional community trying to live with a common set of moral values if your values are not reflected in the laws you must abide by.

   I wholly support same sex unions. I think marriage is a religious term, not a civil term and we should just stop issuing marriage licenses to anyone. Let the state confer the legal benefits of a civil union and if you want to be considered a married couple go to your church for that. It frightens me to think that someone might push through a constitutional amendment that would make it impossible for states to adopt same sex union laws. But if I held strong religious beliefs that same sex unions were sinful and represented a decline in my society’s morality, I might find it impossible to come to terms with my society. I might feel quite strongly that I want to secede. I wanted New England to secede after Bush was appointed in 2000 and again when we invaded Iraq and again when we let him stay in office. Perhaps movements like these are signs that this is where we are headed.

   Its been a long hard battle to hold this country together as a union. Its normal for people to self-select into the groups that they can more comfortably identify with. No one wants to be part of a diaspora. As social creatures, we seek a sense of tribe. What we are seeing here is a stronger, more consciously pro-active form of self-selection than we have in the past. And if they succeed in changing laws to serve their religious beliefs, we might be in for a cataclysmic change in the ole US of A. Change frightens people.

   Also, as a country that was founded by people who had been religiously persecuted, we have a very confusing cultural psyche around religion. Supposedly the national ” we” fought for freedom of religion. We throw that phrase around. But our laws really only reflect one religious school and our national value system is rooted in that school. Those who have fought for real freedom of religion – or respect for all religions and the delicate work that it takes to have laws that support that – will feel their shackles raise when they hear that a Christian group is attempting to manipulate state laws to suit their personal religious beliefs.

   I would prefer that they find a way to secede than allow them to undermine all the work that has been done and has yet to be done to embrace and respect all parties in a melting pot society. That said, I find their approach fascinating. Its resourceful. You have to give them points for that. Its also dedicated. They hold their beliefs so strongly they are willing totake extreme measures. We should all pay attention. We might want to imitate their devotion to their heart’s calling. There are lessons to learn and decisions to make along the way. Perhaps Vermont will become Green State and Nevada will become Casino State and we’ll do the opposite of the European Union – we will become the SSA (Separate States of America)

   I shouldn’t post here late at night…..

3. Robin Says:
   August 9th, 2005 at 12:36 am

   Hi think-

   thanks for your comment. I can see how you might read that phrase that way, and I should probably insert a “potentially” in there, as in, “Why is their plan potentially so unsettling to the rest of us?” to acknowledge that there will be many people who sympathize with the aims and intentions of CE, with good reason. But I think you misinterpreted what I meant. I will try to explain what I meant, but bear with me because I’m still trying to get my head around it and this stuff is pretty subtle and complicated.

   I am not making any claims about Christiantiy, or Christians, or even evangelical Christians, as a whole. I’m talking specifically about the ideas and plans of this one group, and the philosophical underpinings and cultural ramifications of their ideas and plans.

   There have been several articles about CE written in normal “objective” journalistic style. But many of the blogs I’ve see that mention the group have unkindly and unfairly referred to them as “conservative whack jobs” or something along those lines. I think this is extremely unfair and short sighted, but not surprising. I’m sure I don’t have to tell you, but there’s a significant disconnect between secular America and religious America.

   I was fascinated by John Guth’s point as mentioned in this articleabout CE. That there are two historic trends in Christianity, one of which is to separate from the world, retreat into a place of your own making and rule, to “separate the garden from the wilderness,” as they say. And that the other is to actively try and convert the rest of the world, to change it and remodel it according to Christian values and teachings.

   In some ways Christian Exodus is proposing to do both. They will not be able to succeed at what they’re proposing unless they can actively engage the current residents of South Carolina in every aspect of civic and political discourse. But as Allison pointed out, the retreat and separation proposed by Christian Exodus goes against our understanding of what in some ways is the great American project: to make one nation of all our different races and religions and creeds. I don’t want to steal the thunder of the show, but it’s my suspicion that this is why Christian Exodus is so provocative and, potentially, so threatening. Because they cut straight to the heart and challange our notion of what it means to be a nation.

4. Robin Says:
   August 9th, 2005 at 12:38 am

   ps. I’m indebted to NYU’s Noah Feldman for part of this anaylsis. Noah may be joining us for the show, and if he does I’ll post more specific notes from our conversation.

5. Jon Says:
   August 9th, 2005 at 11:36 am

   South Carolina has a very, very long Jewish heritage. See, for example, http://www.jewishcharleston.org/content_display.html?ArticleID=81048, where the timeline of Charleston’s Jewish community is traced back to 1695. It would seem to me that a discussion of asserting Christian principles in the State of South Carolina would benefit greatly from having someone on air who could give listeners a clear sense of the non-Christian heritage in this state–and of the challenges to them potentially represented by the “Christian Exodus”.

6. mhuyck Says:
   August 9th, 2005 at 4:41 pm

   If I lived in South Carolina and I did not like what Christian Exodus planned to do politically I might feel unsettled by the influx of people. The unsettling part is not the people, themselves, but the thought that my political views might get squeezed out of the community conversation by the influx of so many new voices with different views. I would be afraid of the “tyranny” of a newly-created majority.

   Maybe that is the point of the movement. The exodus might be the solution devised by a group of people who find themselves perpetually in the minority. I wonder if this group of people just got tired of getting outvoted everywhere they went and decided to band together to concentrate their power.

   The reality is that I don’t live in South Carolina and I am not entirely clear about what Christian Exodus plans to do or what it is that draws them together, politically. As I understand what I read in the notes above, they are in favor of restricting government influence, with a Christian flavor of some sort. But how can a political movement based upon a “constitutionally limited government” include a position in favor of school prayer without running afoul of the First Amendment’s prohibition against legislating religion? How can this very same movement make any restrictions on who can marry whom? Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that marriage must be between a man and a woman.

   Perhaps these ideas will help clarify the “potentially unsettling” parts of the plan, or perhaps I’ve only made the issue murkier. With all of that said, I am very much in favor of the political experiments described here. The founding fathers envisioned the states as grand experiments in democracy. Re-invigorating that experimental vision is a worthwhile endeavor, indeed! If you are in South Carolina and you are one of the “unsettled” I hope to hear your voice in these comments or on the show. What will you do to ensure your voice can still be heard alongside the new voices?

7. mivoz Says:
   August 10th, 2005 at 4:58 pm

   States don’t have rights. People have rights. That is why our constitution did not gain wide spread approval until the bill of rights was made. The bill of rights was not meant to protect states, but to protect people, including those who are minorities in their state. This movement is an attempt to suppress the rights of those with minority religious beliefs and political philosophies. If you look on the CE website is states,

   “We hold that the power to enact uniform naturalization rules rests with Congress as specified in Article 8 of The Constitution. We also believe that the various States retain the right to restrict and control immigration into the State as had been exercised under the Union until 1875. No person residing in a State contrary to the laws and regulations of that State attains the expectation of rights, privileges or immunities held by citizens.”

   This movement feels like it might be an attempt similar to the confederate succession that led to the Civil War. I do not believe it is a coincidence that this movement is taking place in the first southern state to succeed from the Union. Many people assert that the Civil War was about state rights, not slavery. The truth is that the Civil War was fought to maintain the Union, and thereby protect the rights of the African American citizens of confederate states.

   I am a Christian, and I believe that abortion and gay marriage are wrong. Nevertheless, I also belief that everyone has the right to chose their own lifestyle. Furthermore, all should be able to exercise their rights no matter what state he/she lives in. I believe that the Constitution of the United States supports this philosophy as well.

8. Raymond Says:
   August 14th, 2005 at 5:28 pm

   Robin writes “So the question is, at a time when evangelical Christians have never had so much political power and cultural sway, why is this particular group of Christians running the opposite way?�

   Although ChristianExodus.org does seem to acknowledge the political power of Evangelical Christians, they also seem to believe Christians have failed to effect cultural sway. Consider their homepage:

   “Christians have actively tried to return the United States to their moral foundations for more than 30 years. We now have a professing Christian president, a Republican Congress and a Republican Supreme Court. Yet consider this:
   — Abortion continues against the wishes of many States
   — Sodomite and lesbian “marriageâ€? is now legal (…)
   — Children who pray in public schools are subject to persecution …â€?

   In response, according to the goals of their “Plan of Action,â€? ChristianExodus.org seeks to use the authority of the 10th amendment (“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.”) to alter this failure, as ChristianExodus.org sees it, at least in South Carolina:

   “South Carolina can secure the rights of her citizens by interposing her authority under the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The federal government operates outside its delegated powers in the areas of education, religion, abortion … and a host of other subjects. … Therefore, we will see to it that South Carolina resumes her governmental authority in these matters …�

   This is a political, not a religious, and especially not a Christian, agenda.

   At the heart of the Christian message is the belief that all people are by nature flawed. And the possibility that by God’s grace and our faith this nature can be transformed and perfected, so that believers can love God and love their neighbor, is immensely good news. So, as I understand it, the Christian message is a bottom up, other-centered approach: change the person, love your neighbor, and then change the culture by example.

   ChristianExodus.org takes a top-down approach: acquire the authority of political institutions in order to create a Christian cultural. Loving God or loving one’s neighbors seems to be, at best, a second thought.

   Perhaps the approach is unsettling to us, non-members of ChristianExodus.org, because the use of political authority to make this cultural change seems to imply a use of political authority to promote personal religious change. And this effort does not seem to be in accord with the foundational political principles of America, or with the essential message of Christianity.

9. gregbillock Says:
   August 17th, 2005 at 12:05 am

   Are 20,000 people enough to make a difference in South Carolina? Bush carried the state in 2004 by 940,000 to 661,000. The Senate race margin was 857k to 704k. And this is on a fairly uncontroversial issue (“Who’s going to be president or senator.”) Are 780,001 South Carolinians ready to secede? I doubt it. I think it would take at least 10 times the 20,000 to have a decisive impact, even at the statewide level.

   Just look at how much clout the Constitution Party has on national politics.

10. urbenz Says:
    August 18th, 2005 at 8:16 pm

    raymond, i agree with your comment. I think that any bias to theextreme left or right in one region is bound to make really stupid decisions.

11. zosthrowin Says:
    August 20th, 2005 at 11:00 pm

    As a Christian, this idea and its adherents sound so arrogant as to be embarassing. To believe that living only among those who share certain doctrinal beliefs and a common religious ritual constitutes being part of a community is shallow. Is there nothing to be gained by being side-by-side with someone even a slight bit different from yourself? Don’t we learn most from each other’s uniqueness rather than from what is the same? How else do you grow and develop? Too much fear, brothers and sisters…

12. keepmoving Says:
    August 23rd, 2005 at 8:17 pm

    As a Christian, I am uneasy about this movement for a few reasons.

    1. The nation was not settled for religious freedom of all. The New England area was settled for the Puritans only. The Middle region was originally settled for anyone (The Quakers were willing to share.) The Chesapeake region was settled for monitary purposes. Needless to say, as history will bear out, the Massachuttes closed society didn’t do it a lot of good. Salem witch trials are one account of religion and fear running rampant with nothing to balance it out. Modern day societies that have set themselves up in the same way as New England, have adopted the same radical religion and fear mix and are currently causeing a variety of problems.

    2. Christianity is not ment to be a closed society. A true Christian accepts the command to go an make disciples of all nations to mean, be an ambassador for Christ to everyone. We are not supposed to seclude ourselves from the world, shun the world, and lord the Lord over them. We are supposed to be a testimony of Christ’s love. None of us are perfect. We all make mistakes. How can setting up a government based only on God’s word help those who don’t know Him know His love? I’m afraid what may be grounded in good intensions will bring more animosity toward our God, rather than respect, awe, and a desire to know him better. In other words, better to shows God’s love and forgiveness while doing your best to live according to his word, than to become puffed up and arrogant and have the hand of God come down on you!!!

    3. Who’s Christian veiws will be honored. The radical right? Will African-Americans or religious groups other than Christians who believe the same way and belong to a particular denomination loose their right to vote? (Check out the religious persecution that occured in the early 1880’s that led to Jefferson and Madison moving for no state sponsered churches.) How far will this go? The consequences need to be looked at all the way down the road, not just up to the bend.

    Having said this, I think the Federal Gov. has too much power now and ought to let the States decide who will allow these issues and who won’t. You want to really effect change, quit worring about who the President is and start hammering the Congressmen and Senators. They are the ones making the laws. If the right ones are in office and there is enough of them, it won’t matter what a President will or will not veto, they can over ride them.

13. Robin Says:
    August 25th, 2005 at 5:18 pm

    After some careful thinking and dialogue, we’ve decided to morph this show into a larger show about Christian America, and what it would actually mean to govern by Christian principles. You can read about and contribute to that show here.

14. endoman Says:
    August 29th, 2005 at 12:29 am

    Can someone explain to me why is it that we are waging war against Islamic countries and their theocracies (e.g. Axis of Evil superstar Islamic Republic of Iran) and spending so much time and effort planning to democratize them but are so eager to bring their style of government back home? It seems to me that Pat Robertson and other Christian Right wingers should love such countries as Iran. After all, Iranians’ problem with our way of life seems to be the same as our own problem with our way of life!!!!
    See, the terrorists say that our Micheal-Jackon-loving-Parada-wearing-pornography-watching-TacoBell-gluttonizng-sodomy-accepting-dept-promoting-Godless-behavior is an example of bad morals for the rest of the world…. Now we seem to agree with them? Let’s get our priorities straight. We do have some problems, there’s no question about it; but religion is not the answer. There was a reason the forefathers wanted church and politics to part ways. As in the case of Iran, once you put religion in power you can no longer have a true democracy. Why? Well, because your vote is useless if it infringes on the word of God, which apparently is eternal and not subject to any form of veto.

15. ulwan Says:
    September 1st, 2005 at 12:47 am

    It seems to me that one of the things that many Americans fail to understand about their constitution is that it was specifically designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. 

    Seperation of church and state is a fine example of this.  How would a supporter of the CE respond if he lived in a small rural county that was chosen by a large group of Afro-Cuban Americans as the place in which they would consolidate their power.  Suppose then that these practisioners of Santeria moved into that county in large numbers, ran for public office and passed a resolution that every school day would begin with a “voluntary” devotional to the Orisha?

    My guess it that the CE supporter might be very unhappy with the prospect of his child having to sit through an animal sacrifice every morning.  Yet for some reason these same folks are unwilling to validate the outrage of the Jew or Muslim, or athiest facing a similar Christian dominated situation.

    The argument that Christianity deserves special privileges in America because the men who wrote the founding documents were Christian is about as rational as saying that the the theory of special realitivity is more applicable in Israel because Albert Einstein was a Jew.

16. Diamond Dave Says:
    September 1st, 2005 at 6:37 am

    Back at the turn of the Century 20th century In the early days of the American Socialist Party there was a not small groupin the Party who argued that Socalists should move to Nevada and establish the Cooperative Cominwealth there as a example to the rest of the U.S and the World!

Write a Reply