If there is any person left in this country that understands the significance of the American Revolution,
they must admit our noble experiment has failed. This country is not one nation. Values that were once defended are commonly
being destroyed. Belief in the natural dignity of man, has been usurped with a creed in the omniscience of man. The trail
to national dissolution is embedded upon the foundation that pluralism is desirable. No better example, to prove this conclusion,
is the case of the rational atheist. If one acknowledges that the idea of America holds out the promise of Liberty for All,
it is impossible to achieve this goal when the godless meets the God fearing.
It is absolutely crucial to view the concept of America not as a country, and certainly not as a government.
The uniqueness in the notion of the 1776 revolution, lies within the shot heard round the world. Equity - adjudication of
the inadequate common law, supplant natural law with chancery courts. "Equity follows the law" is the claim, but the practice
is that the law becomes arbitrary, that which men desire.
In a society that equally treats belief in a prime mover with one that has no creator, the principle of Gresham's
law on money applies. Bad dogma drives out good doctrine. The rational atheist believes that belief in the supernatural requires
supernatural proof. They consider their talent to be so refined that only empirical evidence that meets the scrutiny of their
rational notion of epistemological, is acceptable as proof. Since such hubris can never be satisfied, they conclude - God
certainly cannot exist, because I judge it so . . .
They assert this convoluted process as rational. The believer on the other hand accepts that his awareness
into the presence of God is a belief. Faith is not based upon proof and evidence. Reason serves only as the means to accept
that faith is a belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. Belief in an originator can never provide
certainty for the skeptic. But the rational atheist boldly pronounces that god in not just dead, he never existed. They offer
no more proof for such a judgment, than the believer. At the very least, consistency in logic would require that the only
true sound rational conclusion is that of the agnostic. So what does this have to do with pluralism and secession?
Acceptance of intrinsic natural rights that are endowed from a creator are quite different from those rights
that objectivism would acknowledge. If man is the measure of all things, arbitrary becomes optional or leads to discretionary.
Under atheistic Marxism the equity claim of judicial review of a right, is consistent with varied application of that 'so
called' right. If a right is not absolute, it will always be determined to be arbitrary.
Pluralism advocates celebrate the value of diversity as justification to accept diametrically opposing cosmologies,
as equal. It is irrational to equate these two views as candidates for coexistence. The bad ideology will obliterate the good
order. Why? Because recognition in the Liberty of the atheist, requires the persecution of the believer. There is no common
ground. The value culture will dissolve to the lowest marginal standard.
Since Liberty is the central objective and the highest achievement for human interaction within society, how
can the dignity of the atheist and the believer be protected? On the surface this question seems an oxymoron, since their
is no unequivocal source for human rights from the atheist camp. But we as believers, accept the dignity of all men. Our responsibility
is to respect others, even those who's very convictions seek to abolish our values and freedoms to profess our faith. Defending
the Liberty of the atheist is rational, if it can be achieved without the elimination of our way of life and principles of
The secular humanist religiously denies that America was founded upon the fundamental principle that each
person is free to profess their belief in God. All too many confuse that such a faith in a creator, is the same as the practice
of any religion. Religion and belief are very different concepts. Religions are congregations of people who express the practice
of their particular rituals of worship. Denominational sects are not part of this argument. The sorry record of hypocrites
posing as religious institutions need not be illustrated. Their kind of pluralism has more to do with rules made by men in
clerical garb than submission to divine revelation.
Our history is really the tale of separate regions where similar peoples created and settled communities to
be with their own kind. Governments evolved under their own unique cultures while under the protection and rule of the British
Crown. These regions emerged as individual states that professed their sovereignty as independent nations with customs and
laws indigenous to their inhabitants. Citizens maintained their allegiance to their particular state. The 1776 Revolution
was a challenge against the arbitrary rules of men. The monarch would no longer be king. Liberty would be sought for every
man, with only an opportunity guaranteed, to pursue its quest. The Articles of Confederation were a loose union of separate
independent governments, each reflecting varied societies and based upon the consent of the governed. And each state was founded
upon the principles of faith in a creator.
It is time to admit that the country where we all now reside, is but a sham of the societies that once championed
individual Liberty. If the pluralism that was once described as the 'great melting pot', ever existed. it is now; long dead.
What possible sensible reason can be offered for forcible intermingling of peoples so varied and resistant in accepting and
adapting to traditional values and principles of heritage? Face the facts - the United States is not united nor should it
be. Legitimacy of a central government has long been forfeited.
So why not let my people go? Your Liberty can be pursued in harmony with your own kind, why not separate?
Concede and admit the failure of pluralism. Inextricably the non believer only has the State to believe in, with all
its glory in their arrogance of the arbitrary. Secession is the moral course. Yes, you will reply that the government will
never allow such a wild proposal. Surely you would be correct, the nature of the federal system is to control people, and
would not give up the power to dominate citizens. But that evaluation does not dispel the validity of the ethical case. So
much for the prospect of Liberty in a free society.
If individual Liberty is to be achieved for the greatest number of people, each person needs to live under
a political system that earns their consent. We are all prisoners in a cesspool of authoritarianism. Evil men are elected
because amoral voters are satisfied with bribes from their masters. Equity allows for this model to flourish. Atheism justifies
its use. And coercive power destroys Liberty, for all parties. It is time to break this corrupt cycle, separate; so we can
all live our lives as our conscience requires.
SARTRE - February 17, 2002