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.

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 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.

 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.

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.

 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

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. 

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.

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.)

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.

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.

 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.

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?

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.

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.