Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

California: a world gone nuts?


NipkowDisc

Recommended Posts

Saw that on the news last night.  Interesting that it's been proposed before, quite differently. From Wikipedia:

 

 

  • In 1854, the California State Assembly passed a plan to trisect the state. All of the southern counties as far north as MontereyMerced, and part ofMariposa, then sparsely populated but today containing about two-thirds of California's total population, would become the State of Colorado (the nameColorado was later adopted for another territory established in 1861), and the northern counties of Del NorteSiskiyouModocHumboldtTrinityShasta,LassenTehamaPlumas, and portions of ButteColusa (which included what is now Glenn County), and Mendocino, a region which today has a population of little more than half a million, would become the State of Shasta.
  • In 1859, the legislature and governor approved the Pico Act splitting off the region south of the 36th parallel north as the Territory of Colorado.[4][5][6]However, owing to the American Southeast secession crisis in 1860, the proposal never came to a Congressional vote and the Federal government never acted on it.
  • In the late 19th century, there was serious talk in Sacramento of splitting the state in two at the Tehachapi Mountains because of the difficulty of transportation across the rugged range. The discussion ended when it was determined that building a highway over the mountains was feasible; this road later became the Ridge Route, which today is Interstate 5 over Tejon Pass._
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I've always gotten more of a laugh out of all the Darwin Award "Winners" in the world than I ever have a sense of "oh those poor things".

 

(...I'm guessin' you do too, eh dark?!) ;)

 

Laugh? No, not really.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Saw that on the news last night.  Interesting that it's been proposed before, quite differently. From Wikipedia:

 

 

As soon as I saw the name Humboldt my mind flashed on "Squid Valley" and "Calamari County"... LOL!

Link to post
Share on other sites

those OTHER idiots who keep sayin' SOOO freakin' simplistically "all we have to do is what the Founders wanted and everything will be hunky-dory again".

 

Geez I just saw a show on PBS about the tea party...and the leader was spewin' the same sentiment. He said our country was founded on FAITH. This scared the bejesus outta me, since I always thought our country's founders wanted no faith included in government: "Separation of church & state"

 

I am offended by prayers held at any US government meetings, and consider it's alienating.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, it was awful alright, Hibi. I'll agree with you about that.

 

(...BUT, anyone who thinks some other joker might have the "key to their happiness" and falls for charlatans like that, well, sorry, I have a REAL hard time feelin' sorry for people like that...call it my "lack of empathy" or even maybe bein' "mean" if ya want...I really don't care!!!)

 

 

 

The show I saw framed it around one person who blew their life's savings and wound up dying because of that charlatan. At least he's in jail now..........

Link to post
Share on other sites

The East Coast snobs are grating,

I really never cared for them

 

And the Southern folks and with the way they talk,

often make me think they're dim

 

The Midwest folks can sometimes be,

as boring as their states are flat

 

And the Northern folks who freeze their a$$es off

every winter, how about that

 

I wish they all could be California,

I wish they all could be California,

I wish they all could be California-like

 

But Dargo, if you're going to paraphrase the Beach Boys, you really ought to make sure it scans. The original did.

Link to post
Share on other sites

those OTHER idiots who keep sayin' SOOO freakin' simplistically "all we have to do is what the Founders wanted and everything will be hunky-dory again".

 

Geez I just saw a show on PBS about the tea party...and the leader was spewin' the same sentiment. He said our country was founded on FAITH. This scared the bejesus outta me, since I always thought our country's founders wanted no faith included in government: "Separation of church & state"

 

I am offended by prayers held at any US government meetings, and consider it's alienating.

Thomas Jefferson references the almighty in his Declaration of Independence. Do you find that alienating? I would agree that religionists sometimes go too far in foisting their religious beliefs on the rest of us...but neither should that be a free pass for secularists to foist their lack of it on us as well. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

All issues of politicians, sweat lodges, and California aside.. and with nothing but sincere respect for everyone's personal opinions (and at the risk of "alienating" anyone who might disagree)  I feel led to point out that if one were to do an objective study of the historic documents alone that were a part of the founding of this nation.. and if one were to take the time to study the personal histories of many (if not most) of our founding fathers and their actual intent with regard to religion in general, and Christianity, specifically,  (rather than rely on a lot of present day propaganda)  it would be pretty easy to reach the conclusion they did not in fact intend the present day "interpretation" of the concept of "Separation of Church and State" (which by the way.. is not a guarantee in the US Constitution no matter what a lot of misinformed people may think)

 

I won't take the time to post the many (many, oh so many) different founding documents, writings, and personal histories of our early law-makers that clearly show their own faith in God as well as their incorporation of their respect and worship of him, and the adherence to what most would consider to be the traditional concept of a Judeo Christian world view in much of what they wrote.

 

But I could. 

 

The founding fathers clearly desired a society that was open to the idea that everyone has the freedom TO worship God (or not) as their conscience so dictates. And nowhere is there a guarantee to be free FROM the expression of that worship.

 

But I do concede that having said that.. it is also clear they did not design a form of government to be run by the church.They did not want to be under the RULE of the church. But they also wanted to guarantee the rights of individual churches (and people) to be free from being run by the rule of the government. 

 

Nowhere in our Constitution (or any of our founding documents) will you find that there should be NO expression of faith by individuals OR by members of our government whatsoever. With regard to US History, the term Separation of Church and State was actually only first used  by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. (and again.. it was to show that our national design was to protect the CHURCH from the STATE.. not the other way around)

 

There is clear evidence (for anyone who truly wants to look at it) to say that our founding fathers had NO desire to see the expression of one's religious faith treated with anything but respect by the government and that a good deal of Christian doctrine CAN in fact be found in many of our founding fathers' writings, both of a personal and official nature.

 

And please know that I do not mean to start some sort of  ugly war here. I won't even comment on whether or not I think prayers should be spoken in any sort of official way during official government proceedings (though I do have a pretty specific opinion on it)  I just grow weary of the blatant misuse of this "Separation of C & S" term as if it were some sort of  absolute final authority to prohibit the free exercise of what is and SHOULD be a personal freedom that we all of have the right to freely express (or not express) if that is one's choice.  

 

The truth really is on the side of people of faith on this issue.. with all due respect.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"The truth really is on the side of people of faith on this issue.. with all due respect."

 

Hillsdale College is in complete agreement with you and offers a free on-line course Constitution 101.

 

Jake in the Heartland

Link to post
Share on other sites

I said: This scared the bejesus outta me, since I always thought our country's founders wanted no faith included in government

 

Thanks Rohanaka for clarifying the term and defense of our founding fathers wanting faith in government. I'm no historian on the subject, so I'll take your word for it (for now)

 

I just don't see the practice of integrating any (especially choosing one) religion in a government as helpful in this our modern age, when neutrality might be more a politically correct path.

Link to post
Share on other sites

it was to show that our national design was to protect the CHURCH from the STATE.. not the other way around)

 

That's certainly the way I always understood it. The founding fathers were not hostile to religious expression, far from it. Yes, they DID want separation of church and state...but hardly were they atheists or agnostics either.  :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just don't see the practice of integrating any (especially choosing one) religion in a government as helpful in this our modern age, when neutrality might be more a politically correct path.

For who?  :) 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tiki Soo says: Thanks Rohanaka for clarifying the term and defense of our founding fathers wanting faith in government. I'm no historian on the subject, so I'll take your word for it (for now)

 

Well don't take my word for it.. if you are really interested, please be sure to check it out. There are some really great websites that contain volumes and volumes of the writings of the founding fathers. Its a pretty interesting read, if one is truly wanting to see what sorts of opinions they had on a variety of subjects.. this one included. And the library is full of books on the topic as well. I think it is a good thing for everyone's benefit, that so many of these early writings and documents from the Founding Fathers have been so well preserved. It really does remove all doubt as to what they had in mind on a whole host of topics.

 

I just don't see the practice of integrating any (especially choosing one) religion in a government as helpful in this our modern age, when neutrality might be more a politically correct path.

 

Well everyone is always entitled to his or her own opinion. The main thing to keep in mind in situations where people don't always agree.. is that it is always possible to disagree without being disrespectful about it. (so as long as these things can be discussed without ugly battles, then everyone can feel welcome to share their own point of view)

 

So I appreciate your polite response.  

 

And let me just add that I know there are no easy answers on this and several other "hot-button" topics where some folks prefer ONE way of looking at the topic and others prefer to see things differently.

 

So at some point.. we all may have to just agree to disagree on certain topics. (Because hey.. there are always going to be things in the government that SOME folks won't like that other folks will. And vice versa)  

 

But those personal freedoms that are guaranteed to us (either explicitly or just implied) by the Constitution really are pretty "untouchable" when it comes to popular opinion. Opinions come and opinions go. So it is good to have an unmovable standard to protect the actual "freedom' of individuals in the face of constant change. Imagine the chaos we'd have had if things were so vague as to rely on the changing times from year to year. Nobody would ever know WHERE they stood with regard to law depending on what side of the fence they were on with any given topic.

 

So it may be only my opinion, but I am grateful that our early law-makers were so wise to give us such a good foundation in our Constitution to secure those specific guaranteed rights by the wording they used to define them all. It's not a perfect document.. but it is a very excellent one, to have stood the passing of time so well. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tiki Soo says: Thanks Rohanaka for clarifying the term and defense of our founding fathers wanting faith in government. I'm no historian on the subject, so I'll take your word for it (for now)

 

Well don't take my word for it.. if you are really interested, please be sure to check it out. There are some really great websites that contain volumes and volumes of the writings of the founding fathers. Its a pretty interesting read, if one is truly wanting to see what sorts of opinions they had on a variety of subjects.. this one included. And the library is full of books on the topic as well. I think it is a good thing for everyone's benefit, that so many of these early writings and documents from the Founding Fathers have been so well preserved. It really does remove all doubt as to what they had in mind on a whole host of topics.

 

I just don't see the practice of integrating any (especially choosing one) religion in a government as helpful in this our modern age, when neutrality might be more a politically correct path.

 

Well everyone is always entitled to his or her own opinion. The main thing to keep in mind in situations where people don't always agree.. is that it is always possible to disagree without being disrespectful about it. (so as long as these things can be discussed without ugly battles, then everyone can feel welcome to share their own point of view)

 

So I appreciate your polite response.  

 

And let me just add that I know there are no easy answers on this and several other "hot-button" topics where some folks prefer ONE way of looking at the topic and others prefer to see things differently.

 

So at some point.. we all may have to just agree to disagree on certain topics. (Because hey.. there are always going to be things in the government that SOME folks won't like that other folks will. And vice versa)  

 

But those personal freedoms that are guaranteed to us (either explicitly or just implied) by the Constitution really are pretty "untouchable" when it comes to popular opinion. Opinions come and opinions go. So it is good to have an unmovable standard to protect the actual "freedom' of individuals in the face of constant change. Imagine the chaos we'd have had if things were so vague as to rely on the changing times from year to year. Nobody would ever know WHERE they stood with regard to law depending on what side of the fence they were on with any given topic.

 

So it may be only my opinion, but I am grateful that our early law-makers were so wise to give us such a good foundation in our Constitution to secure those specific guaranteed rights by the wording they used to define them all. It's not a perfect document.. but it is a very excellent one, to have stood the passing of time so well. 

Very well said.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The show I saw framed it around one person who blew their life's savings and wound up dying because of that charlatan. At least he's in jail now..........

 

WAS in jail, Hibi. He was just released after serving his 18 months, and is now back in the business of "helping others find themselves"...for a "small nominal charge", of course.

 

(...where oh where do all these gullible "lost souls" in the world come from, I'd LOVE to know)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh ye of little faith...in the idea that the Constitution of these United States was written much more in the vein of "secular Masonic" principles than of any one religious philosophy.

 

(...and that's all I'm gonna say in regard to this matter, as I'd like to see a continence of this thread's existence...'cause basically I'd HATE to see my earlier fracturing of that Beach Boys song wiped out!!!) LOL

Link to post
Share on other sites

With regard to our founding fathers.. and their personal integrity.. I will only add that  it is easy to point fingers. But I do agree that there is much that our forefathers did or said that was not always perfect. They were just humans, like we all are.

 

Editing the rest of my post, because.. meh.. what's the point?   

 

Because as I mentioned earlier.. we are all entitled to our own opinions.

 

Thanks everyone, for letting me share mine.

Link to post
Share on other sites

With regard to our founding fathers.. and their personal integrity.. I will only add that  it is easy to point fingers. But I do agree that there is much that our forefathers did or said that was not always perfect. They were just humans, like we all are.

 

Editing the rest of my post, because.. meh.. what's the point?   

 

Because as I mentioned earlier.. we are all entitled to our own opinions.

 

Thanks everyone, for letting me share mine.

 

I do have a problem with this statement:  it was to show that our national design was to protect the CHURCH from the STATE.. not the other way around

 

What is 'the church'?    There is no THE church in the USA.   That is key.   Unlike England where there was THE church (the Church of England),   one goal of the consititution was to ensure there was no state sponsored church,  therefore no THE church.    

 

Our national design was to protect ALL churches from the state,  as well as to protect people that wish to belong to NO church, from the state.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Man! You guys really ARE determined to get my fractured Beach Boys song deleted, aren't ya?!!!

 

(...I mean, you have NO idea how close I came to "liking" my own post after I "composed" that!!!)

 

LOL

Link to post
Share on other sites

James, with respect.. I am pretty much finished commenting in this thread. But to clarify.. I think that the best way to interpret the word "the" when I said "THE Church".. would be churches in general. (pretty much as I mentioned elsewhere in my post)  but more specifically, any sort of organized religion at all.

 

The founders did not intend for any church to run the government or BE run by the government.  So your further statement would be in keeping with my own.. because if you read my whole post, I tried not to be very specific as to which church I was speaking.

 

But in all fairness, and in keeping with the general understanding of "church" from the day and age the Constitution was written.. I am certain that the "Christian" faith in particular was definitely in the minds of many (if not most) of the founders when they used the term Church. However.. they did not so define it that way in their wording.. again, I believe in the interest of insuring the freedom for people to worship (or NOT worship) as they felt led (rather than as dictated by the government) 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do have a problem with this statement:  it was to show that our national design was to protect the CHURCH from the STATE.. not the other way around

 

What is 'the church'?    There is no THE church in the USA.   That is key.   Unlike England where there was THE church (the Church of England),   one goal of the consititution was to ensure there was no state sponsored church,  therefore no THE church.    

 

Our national design was to protect ALL churches from the state,  as well as to protect people that wish to belong to NO church, from the state.

Yes, but isn't there a danger in THE STATE going so far in it's exuberance to create an environment of total (which seems to be what progressives are after at the end of the day) religious neutrality that they actually wind up stifling any and all religious expression? The founding fathers were most definitely not atheists and agnostics so I seriously doubt they woulda wanted an environment hostile to any and all religious expression. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but isn't there a danger in THE STATE going so far in it's exuberance to create an environment of total (which seems to be what progressives are after at the end of the day) religious neutrality that they actually wind up stifling any and all religious expression? The founding fathers were most definitely not atheists and agnostics so I seriously doubt they woulda wanted an environment hostile to any and all religious expression. :)

 

No, but maybe more the idea of "indifference to and from religious expression" and without undue governmental influence either upon it, or in the reverse paradigm, from it.

 

(...though...once again...you folks really ARE tryin' get my version of that Beach Boys song wiped out here, AREN'T ya???!!!) LOL

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but isn't there a danger in THE STATE going so far in it's exuberance to create an environment of total (which seems to be what progressives are after at the end of the day) religious neutrality that they actually wind up stifling any and all religious expression? The founding fathers were most definitely not atheists and agnostics so I seriously doubt they woulda wanted an environment hostile to any and all religious expression. :)

 

I don't see any stifling of PRIVATE religious expression or any hostile environment toward PRIVATE religious expression.

 

Instead what I see is paranoia.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see any stifling of PRIVATE religious expression or any hostile environment toward PRIVATE religious expression.

 

Instead what I see is paranoia.

Paranoia? No. Concern? Yes. Concern over a virulent hostility for the very judeo-christian underpinnings of western civilization. Standards which have endured for at least 500 years now. Moral decay is something to be avoided and not rushed torward at a breakneck speed.  :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...