Theologically Sound. Culturally Relevant.

the-debate-on-gun-control-in-the-us

National Divorce and the Federalist Papers

In the discourse of our national politics, there is the growing theory which lends credence to the idea that America is at least two separate nations, with divergent ideals and values, and the proper solution to our sustained political divisions should be to implement a National Divorce. In the past, we have discussed Christians fleeing Blue States in favor of Red States, but should we as Christians support the idea of National Divorce as a political solution to America’s problems?

Truthfully, there is little the Bible says on the subject. Loosely speaking, the Israelite government function in a quasi-federal structure where there was the King, the Tribal Leaders, and the Levitical Priests. All three represented civil authorities in the Old Testament. Obviously, the priest, under the law, had authority regarding cleanliness standards and were God’s instruments checking the kings, along with the prophets. When Israel went through her division during the early reign of Rehoboam, it was the tribal leaders who initiated the divorce, citing the high burdens imposed by Solomon as their primary grievance. This divorce was ordained by God, who raised up Jeroboam as a punishment to Solomon. Despite the immediate failures of the Northern Kingdom, it is reasonable to conclude that the motivations behind the National Divorce movement should be the primary concern rather than the actual policy itself.

While the National Divorce is motivated by the best and most honest of intentions, there are many elements of importance which are disregarded in the larger discourse from a logistical standpoint. Through wisdom, we should look to the past in search of answers to the future. This is not the first instance where National Divorce has been proposed as a solution to America’s woes. Under our first government, the Articles of Confederation, America successfully won her independence from the British, yet the governance in the aftermath was laughably ineffective, leading to the Constitutional Convention in 1787. In an ongoing debate between divorce, status quo, and ratification of the US Constitution, the Federalist Papers were penned to initiate this discourse and answer objections to the alternatives. It is from the minds of Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay where we can glean reasonable objections to the proposed National Divorce of these modern times.

The first prevailing objection which must be answered is that of foreign policy concerns. A divided America would appear weaker on a foreign front, even more so than it is under the feeble Biden Regime. It is assumed that the military would be broken up amicably, so that will not be the primary focus of this point. Instead, it will be that of Red and Blue Americas’ ability to ward off foreign influence, which would seek to interfere in a quest for global hegemony. In 1787, America dealt with British occupation in her territories and Spanish interference of Mississippi River access. Other nations, including France, were economically threatened by the newly created American commercial engine. The contemporary powers of China and Russia would doubtless be emboldened in a National Divorce. Our corporations and politicians have long sold America out to the Chinese, and this would doubtless be furthered by divorce. The Blue America, which doubtless would include California and Silicon Valley, would be favorably disposed towards China. Such influence would inevitably seep between Americas economically, politically, and militarily. Likewise, Russia might actually become influential in American politics, perhaps as a buttress against China, but nonetheless a more prevalent force in the world, filling the power vacuum. Other contenders would include the emergence of the European Union and the Saudi’s as foreign influencers that the split America would have to contend with. A divided America would lack global hegemony and be subject to these interferences.

The second objection necessary for discussion of National Divorce would be that of America’s economic standing. For purpose of analysis, it will be assumed two things: that National Divorce would begin with a mutual trade deal and the US dollar, as it currently exists, would be the shared currency between the separate nations. Factors that determine the economic strength of a nation include its population, which for America would be split between multiple nations. The combination of our states grants us commercial power capable to a degree of self-sufficiency, as in with energy independence. On a global front, this American trade block would be weaker in competition with China, the EU, Japan, and India, along with other rising economic powers. The divided interests between varying capitals within this new trade block would invite a “divide and conquer” economic strategy. The corporations, already global to where they transcend national loyalty, would become more globalist in their operation, undermining economic strength of the trade block. It could be said that Red America would resort to actuating a trade war against China, but if only Red America acts against China while Blue America is embedded with Beijing, then the American Trade block would soon be at odds within itself. The economic concerns of 1787 are hardly shared with modern times, as most states are industrialized, even the most agricultural ones. At the same time, the competition between nations extends beyond America and Europe, magnifying the landscape. Then it must be added the multinational corporations, who would be disinclined to home nation loyalty, will impose globalist agendas upon the workforces of the divided America. Questions of sustainability of an American trade block or even the stability of the dollar, which would be scrutinized in favor of the Yuan, or the Euro are also matters of speculation to consider.

A seemingly minor third objection would be the repayment of debts. When the US Constitution was written, there was provisions established that the debt previously held under the Articles of Confederation would be honored by the newly formed government. Our outstanding national debt binds our nation together. Though a united America can spend endlessly with little consequence, thus amassing an illusionary debt crisis, how this debt would be divided, if at all, is unanswered. While it is assumed that the debt would be split amicably between the Americas, the risks of delinquency, default, or continued endless spending that has been experienced require address. Even if one America inclines itself towards fiscal conservatism while the other continues the pattern of deficit spending, this will destabilize the shared currency while pressuring the policies of the more fiscally responsible counterparts.

The most glaring concern our federalist forefathers wrote pertaining to National Divorce would be the amplification of hostilities between the states. In 1787, the concern was that the neighboring states would more likely war with one another as opposed to European powers. Although possible, the prospect of outright war between the divided Americas would be unlikely, as the people are currently disinclined towards endless wars. Furthermore, the National Divorce is a proposal meant to avert a second civil war between the states. Contrary to this expectation, the cultural wars of modern times would be escalated to higher levels than are presently experienced. A Marxist America would bode for a poor neighbor for Red America. Doubtless, the Marxists would enact extreme policies regarding immigration, abortion, sexual degeneracy, gun control, and censorship without any means of restraint. There would be no checks and balance to this radical agenda. Unfortunately, this depravity would not be restricted to simply the Marxist America. Red America would certainly enact measures protecting against the aforementioned issues, possibly enacting a truly conservative agenda for the first time, albeit at a slower pace than the Marxist would enact their vision. In the immediate period surrounding the National Divorce, they would be bolstered by patriots relocating to Red America. For a time, there might truly be an America that is recognizable to its founding constitution as written and separated by several hundred years of human development. Eventually, Blue America will seek to subvert Red America. The policies, both economic and social, would infiltrate Red America. Expatriates from Blue America would carry with them their political influence which in due time would inevitably plague the lands the which they relocate. The influence of Blue America is undeniable. They increasingly control the media, large corporations, academia, and sports. While measures in Red America might combat these forces, the walls erected would not impregnable. The people in Red America would still be exposed to the cultural exports of Blue America, which over time, would infiltrate and propagandize Red America into Purple America, and eventually Blue America with guns. Just as Republicans drift towards increasingly liberal and leftist concepts, so also would a Red America ideologically drift towards its Marxist neighbors. For a time, the National Divorce would reverse the leftist drift of Red America. Whether it be ten years or thirty, Red America would end up exactly where it started, contemplating another National Divorce, making the initial measure a stop-gap solution.

Ultimately, National Divorce may only amount to an increasingly believed fantasy designed to cope with the deterioration of our national identity. There is no sharing a culture between those who believe the truth that gender is biological and binary with those who believe it is a fluid spectrum. There is no sharing a nation between those who adore its founding with those who detest it. This nation is engulfed in Cold Civil War between two competing cultures. Instead of hoping for National Divorce to save this nation, perhaps a better solution would be to actually implement policies of cultural balkanization, or in plain speak, we the people force our current Red States to actually govern like their base constituencies desire. Start there, and maybe a divorce will become unnecessary.

Support the Evangelical Dark Web

It's not about the money. It's about supporting the mission in contending for the faith against false doctrines. Consider becoming a member of the Evangelical Dark Web. If you aren't willing, comfortable, or able to, that's cool. And if you still like our content, at least subscribe to the newsletter below.
Receive the Evangelical Dark Web Newsletter

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Pinterest

5 Responses

  1. If there is national divorce and it would be between Leftists and Right Wingers it would be a disaster and end in tyranny.

    This idea, that you can have a united America that is pluralist is nonsense. The experiment of pluralism that America is following with the 1st amendment’s freedom of religion nonsense has been a total disaster.

    It worked for a while because such a large majority of the population was Christian but 50+ million dead babies latter we should be able to all see that pluralism is horrendously bad.

    If America is divided and it’s based on right wing politics without being explicitly Christian that will not end well. Not following biblical standards for government is never a good idea.

    America can not have open practicing of Islam, Judaism, Roman Catholicism, or any other false religion and think it will have God’s blessing. If the civil magistrate is not explicitly Christian and does not actively suppress false religion it’s going to be horrible. This idea that you can have a neutral secular government is insanity and if the Son is not kissed and bowed to by the magistrate only ruin will come.

    America must have a religious test oath for office. You should have to be an orthodox bible believing Christian in order to serve in political office or vote.

    We must return to our roots and follow our Christian heritage and institute something like the Massachusetts Body of Liberties which is an explicitly Christian legal code unlike the US Constitution.

    The sad thing about America is that if a Christian civil magistrate came along and actually wanted to be biblical in is office most Christians would not want to have that and would not support him.

    This is why massive reformation in the church must occur before America can be fixed or something new built on these shores.

    Many of America’s troubles come from a rebellious church that hates God’s law and will not obey scripture.

    The church cannot expect the magistrate to follow God’s law and respect freedom when they are in serious rebellion to God’s order.

    The church in America is so blind to this, and they won’t set their own house in order and yet are thinking they can fix society.

    Mass repentance must come from the church or things will only get worse and worse.

  2. “Roman Catholicism is a false religion” states Innovation HQ.
    Here we go yet again with more evangelical looney tunes. Prots, and evangelicals, came out of Roman Catholicism. Read history. It’s an empirical truth that evangelicals deny endlessly. And btw, I’m not a Roman Catholic.
    What he’s advocating is a pipe dream theocracy, and this is precisely why many dislike and mistrust evangelicals, and that includes me.
    Here’s how I see it, the same atheist leftists who’d cart myself and my denomination to the Gulags or firing squads are the same evangelicals as this guy is, who’d do the same, if given the opportunity, with the same ease as dropping a morning bowel movement. Look at Oliver Cromwell and his Calvinist Puritans atrocities in Ireland during the English Civil War.
    I would of course resist, and not allow those like this poster from doing this to myself, or my church, and would die trying.

    1. Response to Tubal Cain.

      Yes. Roman Catholicism is a false religion it anathematizes the gospel in CANON 12 of the Council of Trent and affirms a false gospel in Catechism of the Catholic Church 2068, It is a synagogue of Satan.

      I am promoting the historic Reformed Protestant position on the civil magistrate as taught by the original Westminster Confession of Faith.

      You can call it a theocracy, but there is still a biblical separation of church and state.

      Christians have been taught to believe theocracy is bad thing and they have the idea stuck in their head of what goes on in Muslim countries but a Christian biblical theocracy is very different then that.

      Westminster Confession of faith chapter 23
      III. The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven:a yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire; that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed; all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed; and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed.b For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God.c

      Oliver Cromwell had puritan ministers put to death like Christopher Love, so what he was doing was not biblical.

      Most evangelicals today reject the biblical doctrine of the civil magistrate and think freedom of religion is great so I don’t understand why you think that makes people dislike evangelicals.

      Only a tiny remnant of ultra conservative reformed people hold to and promote what I am advocating as a real biblical solution instead of a national divorce based on political parties.

      It’s simple Romans 13:4 shows that the civil magistrate is to be a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

      Violations of the first table of the law are defiantly evil so if the magistrate executes wrath on someone for committing a crime against one of these commandments he is simply fulfilling his duty.

      The moral civil case laws outside of the Decalogue are binding and not abrogated MATTHEW 5:18.

      So what if people don’t like evangelicals? This is what is bound to happen if you give any resistance to the world system. If the world does not hate you then you on the wrong track.

      You assume that if Christians had control of the government that we would be hauling people off to gulags but this is a false assumption.

      The idea that this biblical form of government would mean there is a Christian Gestapo searching peoples homes and carting people off if they are bowing to a statue of Mary or some other idol in their living room is false.

      Forced labor is not biblical punishment for idolatry or blasphemy so if someone belongs to a false religion they would not be sent to a labor camp because of that.

      It seems that you are suggesting your denomination would fall outside of Christian orthodoxy because you would be worried about being punished as a false religion adherent so it would be interesting to know what that is.

      In this biblical form of government, you have nothing to worry about if your an Orthodox biblical Christian.

      I do not really identify with the modern evangelical movement since it’s so bad in doctrinal and moral areas.

      Something that might surprise you is that I am against voting or holding political office.

      Many of those that hold to this same biblical view of civil government also are political dissenters who cannot in good conscience vote for anybody or hold political office or join the military since doing so is swearing to or promoting someone to uphold the US Constitution which we view as anti biblical in many areas.

      You don’t have to worry about real Covenanter Christians getting elected and implementing this stuff unless the Constitution is amended.

  3. So what, I, and many others, still dislike and mistrust evangelicals, whether your sociopathy thinks. My denomination is in fact the true church of Christ established in 33 A.D. long before dominionist calvies like this wing nut ever walked the earth I might add. Come to think of it, I don’t have too many worries with limp wristed skittles like White, McArthur, Washer, and Innovation who are just like Antifa, noodle arms, who are flatulence in a whirlwind, talk tough, and don’t know which end of a firearm the projectile exits. I’m 64, and I’ve slugged it out with far worse than this evangelical dolt. My 1911 Colt works just fine the last I checked.
    Again, one need only look at Cromwell, and his Calvinist Puritans, as well as the 30 Years War of the 17th century, where 6-8 million died. Something the Roman Catholics at least apologized for their involvement in, but Prots and the calvies were “doing God’s work”.

  4. Second response to Tubal Cain

    Since you don’t want to name the group, you belong to I am going to make a guess that it’s Eastern Orthodox which means you are defiantly outside of Biblical Christianity.

    For all others to observe notice how this person does not engage with biblical texts but results to name calling and and slanderous lies. People like this brag about their firearms and try to project some sort of macho persona but I wonder if this is just another one of the plethora of keyboard warriors?

    People like this clearly demonstrate by their conduct that corrupt communication does proceed out of their mind.

    They don’t have real arguments and hurl all kinds of insults and lies.

    Someone concerned with godly piety and biblical sanctification would not act like this person.

    If you dislike evangelicals so much what are you doing on an evangelical website? You should just go somewhere else if evangelicals trigger you so much.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: