General Question

Crusader's avatar

Should a Conservative community be allowed in America if all participants are willing? Why or why not?

Asked by Crusader (576points) April 23rd, 2009

Do you believe in free will for all?
Should we have the choice or should the
choice be made for us?
Example, Catholic/Christian/Mormon States
and Liberal States sovereign and independent of eachother.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

90 Answers

SpatzieLover's avatar

Catholics, Mormons -etc already have their own villages/towns.

Other than that, NO. I’m good with Democracy as it stands.

Crusader's avatar

The question did not indicate village/town.
It specified States. For example, all who are willing
could relocate to given states and form their own
collective government Independent and sovereign of
the Liberal States. Liberals can have their ‘Democracy’
and conservatives their Theocracy.

It would be interesting, yes? to determine
which society would be more effective, prosperous
and well governed…

kevbo's avatar

Someone mentioned this book which relates to your question. Unlike the author, she thought it was a good thing.

I’d have to think about it to give a further opinion.

Crusader's avatar

I believe what is transpiring now in America is
the primary reason for the Protestant Movement
from the Old World. However, now it is a matter of
division, not manifest destiny.

Liberals have a decided Reality Bias -Anonymous

Reality has a decided Liberal Bias- Steven Cobert

SpatzieLover's avatar

Well, I have zero idea what state I’d reside in then. My husband is one way, I am another, and we are both Catholic. Thank God for America as it stands.

Crusader's avatar


As a Catholic, If your husband decided the Conservative option
would you follow him? Why or why not?

cwilbur's avatar

I have no problems with the idea of a conservative state. Especially if there’s funding and support for people who want to leave it.

avalmez's avatar

yeah, well, i’m not sure what you mean by what’s transpiring now in america. there have always been people here whose religious beliefs cross over into their politics. and, as a free nation they are free to be that way. as @SpatzieLover mentions, however, thank god for our constitution which protects their religion from becoming my government. not to say they don’t impact government, but the US as it stands will never become a Catholic state nor will any state of the US ever become a Mormon state. And i’m certain the vast majority of americans would support leaving things as they are.

but specfic to free will, yes – i do believe we all have free will in the sense that we act ou of our own conscience.

SpatzieLover's avatar

@Crusader He is the “conservative”. No, I would not follow him. But if he left for the Conservative State, then he wouldn’t be very Catholic, now would he?

Why wouldn’t I follow? Many reasons:

*I am not a follower
*I do not hold conservative opinions
*I could not live with so many people that hold ONE opinion on life
*I’d want people to change or atleast open their minds up.

And on & on…

avalmez's avatar

@Crusader where the above is concerned, do you equate Conservative with religious?

IchtheosaurusRex's avatar

Are you talking about secession of the Red states? Like Texas?

No. They lost. They should suck it up and stop being such sore losers.

Crusader's avatar


Actually,,no America was a Protestant nation inially
first and foremost, a the 13 colonies…
Also, ‘the vast majority of Americans’ are allegedly
Christian…If this is true,,, or even partially,
then Many would opt for a sovereign,independent
State(s) for Conservatives.

Spatziel, as a non believer
your position is understood. Why would
you consider a husband with such
diferrent views in the first place?
Though your children will be blessed
for his belief…

SpatzieLover's avatar

Uh, you seems to have a closed mind. So I will wrap this up by saying, Jesus taught everyone to live their lives ONE way, while MANY Churches lead people another.

Qingu's avatar

Out of curiosity, Crusader, what would you have said if liberal gay atheists wanted to secede from the Union during Bush’s presidency?

Something tells me you’d call them “traitors” or “treasonous.” Which would make you a hypocrite.

Also, write your posts in paragraphs, please. It’s annoying to read.

Qingu's avatar

Also, @Crusader, what do you think of Thomas Jefferson?

Crusader's avatar


Your position is already reflected in half the
states of the Union, and several which provide
for advantageous financial, and academic government
mandated legistlation.

Also, this group you mentioned profits for the industriousness and thrift
of conservatives, why one Earth would you want
to renounce your ‘minority’ status and work
harder, longer, and for less benifits?

Qingu's avatar

You didn’t answer my question.

avalmez's avatar

-@crusader all due respect, i think you have it wrong. the overwhelming number of americans without a doubt support the separation of church and state and so would not opt for establishing a Religious state. First of all, and in the case of the Protestants, they’d never agree all Protestants are alike nor what flavor of Protestantism their hypothetical Religious state should adopt as the State religion. Moot point, however, beccause the prior point about such a hypothetical not being possible takes precedence.

avalmez's avatar

@Qingu tone, dude, tone

Likeradar's avatar

Simply, NO. We are the UNITED States. There’s plenty of debate and differences without having this kind of government-sanctioned separation.

edited to add: and the debates and differences make life interesting.

Crusader's avatar


Actually, if you include the epistles,
(Paul, and James in particular,)
you would locate the reason
between Catholic and Protestant.

That said, Christianity is not
‘Jesus-anity’ It is the bible.
And, thanks to some Mormon martyrs,
(killed by selected apostolic Christians
and their often misinformed allies,
for directly undermining slavery and Native persecution,)
the Book of Mormon.

Ironic, the last true conservative American church
and the most tolerant and above corruption mostly
is the most demonized, so much for tolerance and gratitude.

adreamofautumn's avatar

When people all move into one area that is solely governed on one belief that doesn’t have any opposition to that belief…it becomes a cult of mindless followers. Those are generally frowned upon.

Qingu's avatar

@Crusader, whoa, you’re against slavery? I thought you believed in the Bible, which condones (Lev 25:45, 1 Tim 6:1) and commands (Deut 20:10) slavery. I also thought you were a white supremacist…

And please answer my questions above. You have this annoying habit of not interacting with the discussion.

Crusader's avatar

Free will is foremost, however, Accoutability, Love, and honesty without gratitute
is a recipe for resentment, bitterness and strife.

Crusader's avatar


Yours is not the only valid position,
nor is it the most reasonable, or accurate.
However, you are entitled to it.

SpatzieLover's avatar

@Crusader My screen name is SPATZIE or Spatzielover (yes, I LOVE animals as much or more than humans).

Next, I am a Catholic. I care not what makes one protest enough to become a Protestant.

I listen follow the word of the Lord, not the words (parables) in the Bible.

Qingu's avatar

@Crusader, no shit I’m entitled to my position. How about you defend yours.

Likeradar's avatar

@Crusader Would you mind giving an example of how this proposed situation would look in real life? Where would these communities be? What would happen to the people who now live in the proposed areas? Are you suggesting separating by religion, level of liberalness/conservativeness…?

avalmez's avatar

actually such communities do exist. Great Britain, France, Italy, Israel, and a whole host of Islamic nations

avalmez's avatar

and, yes, in less tolerant times, Mormonism was demonized and its adherents persecuted, hence their attempt to form a Mormon state in the American west. however, Mormonism is not considered by most Christ-based religions as Christian today – i dont think that means today the church is demonized.

Crusader's avatar


As a believer, do you recognize Christs
blessing of the Apostilles to preach?
They conversion of the non-jewish
community was a result of them.

The Lord Jesus gave them Personal blessings
to do so, to not acknowledge this
is to not acknowledge the Word of the Lord.

avalmez's avatar

@Crusader what is the real purpose of your question? it seems to have gotten off track and into proselytizing

Crusader's avatar

alvalmez said;

‘I don’t think that means today the church is demonized’

Well, the attacks from both ‘establishments’
the liberal and the conservative
were well organized and very
intense during the last presidential
election, remember Mitt Romney in the primary
for president? So, as long as they have no
authority, they are not demonized perhaps…

As if to say, we (the establishment) will
accept Anything but the LDS and their
history of righteousness, particularly
if it compromises our ability to profit
handsomely at the expense of Accountability
Love and Honesty,

Even if a kinder, gentler, better educated
and tolerant society is the result of
such leadership…

Same as then, same as now.

Qingu's avatar

I think it’s hilarious that you’re talking about the LDS’s history of righteousness. You must not count the whole “blacks are the descendants of Cain and can’t be allowed into church” thing as unrighteous, being a white supremacist and whatnot.

Likeradar's avatar

So… you would mind explaining your
question then?
I do not understand the
purpose of asking what might have been an interesting question…
only to use the
space to ramble
and try to push your beliefs on to people who answer…
You are getting no where in
your lame attempt to get people to understand you…
and see things your way
You have helped me, for one, see that the stereotype
of the crazy religious nutjob
stems from truth.

Crusader's avatar

Please practice what you preach.

Likeradar's avatar

@Crusader What, exactly, am I preaching?

Crusader's avatar


Actions speak louder than Words.
As did Christs, as have LDS.

The ‘supremist’ of the 1900’s was the
radical activist of today.

The radical activist of today
was the…....?

Qingu's avatar

…..‘supremist’ of the 1900’s?

Because if A = B then B = A.

Not sure what your point is. Pretty sure you don’t have one and are just rambling. May I ask what you do for a living, @Crusader?

Crusader's avatar


You know exactly my point.
And, what may I ask do you do for a living?

SpatzieLover's avatar

Read your own question.
Tell us what you mean.
Must be more difficult than I think it is.

Step off from your soap box, pulpit, please. You have entered a KIND community that LIKES to discuss topics, not be preached at.

Qingu's avatar

No, I actually have no idea what your point is. Your posts don’t make sense.

I’m an editor. Do you get paid to post on comment sections on news websites? I’m mostly trying to figure out why you write the way you do.

dynamicduo's avatar

I would love it if a group of people could band together and form a new community based on their beliefs. Sadly, this requires other countries giving up land and then respecting the rules and laws of the new country, which is not going to happen anytime soon, otherwise TONS of people will leave their countries for better places, the governments won’t have enough money to fund themselves, it all goes to shit.

@Crusader, I don’t find your attitude in this thread to be anywhere close to facilitating positive discussion. In fact, you seem to enjoy jumping down other people’s throats, as evidenced with your RIDICULOUS and disrespectful comments towards @SpatzieLover. I suggest you stop doing this if you want to continue participating in this community, as here we respect other people, not preach to them.

Likeradar's avatar

@dynamicduo For the sake of staying on topic…:)
“I would love it if a group of people could band together and form a new community based on their beliefs”

Would you like to see those communities as part of the USA, or as their own countries? What would happen if, for example, the Neo-Nazi community decided to invade another area?

I’m having trouble seeing how a situation like this would actually look, the OP is no help so what are your thoughts?

Crusader's avatar


Last time I checked contributing to Any thread was optional,accusation and (threat?) If the word Conservative is ambiguous, and not understood in the context of the thread by contributors that is unfortunate, yet the term of this discussion, as all others are often modified by the positions taken by the members. Yours is a communist society, that does not represent the Entire collective yet, fortunately. Christ died not because he was popular and loved by all in his timebut because he told truth, strangely enough there are those who will engage even now, and…why? You have already conquered American culture, is this forum so threatening?

Qingu's avatar

@Crusader, we’re not scared of what you have to say. It’s just that you’re annoying.

Picture a group of people having a good, intelligent, back-and-forth discussion. Now picture a guy walking into this group and just reciting his bad poetry. If people ask him what he thinks, he just recites more bad poetry.

You’re that guy. Do you see how it might be annoying from the other end? The problem isn’t what you’re saying, the problem is how you’re saying it, and the fact that you won’t actually defend it and interact with what people are saying to you.

Crusader's avatar


’..Love it if.. group to band together form new community bases on their beliefs…’

So would I, my point exactly. I simply wanted to ask
about positions to legalize territory for those very people and their beliefs.

I would see them as the post indicated, Sovereign.
And, you do not have to be an athiest hypocrite Western
supporting industrialist Nazi-supporting aggression,
remember communism? And there are subtler means…
Like encouraging abortions in certain demographics…

Crusader's avatar


Your definition of ‘good’ is not shared by me.
Hence the open forum. Find a closed forum for your
discussions. Or am I really that entertaining?

Irreconciliable positions such as these
are why I asked the original question to begin with.

avalmez's avatar

@Crusader no offense, but it seems that English may not be your native tongue and may be why some of us are having trouble understanding your posts. your points come across somewhat but could be misinterpreted. also, you may actually be violating guidelines relating to posting a question that’s a trojan horse, so to speak. thats why i asked about the purpose of your question.

@qingu kindly remove from thine own eye..

Likeradar's avatar

@Crusader Um, I was quoting dynamicduo…
It was an attempt at blocking out the proselytizing and focusing on the q you asked…

Likeradar's avatar

@Crusader And wait… can you explain the certain demographics who should be encouraged to have abortions?!?

I think this thread has officially become a crazy train with an ignorant and possibly insane conductor.

avalmez's avatar

yes, this has become tiresome g’day mates!

Likeradar's avatar

@avalmez I’m out too. I feel no need to give this guy an audience for his arrogance and ignorance.

Crusader's avatar


No offence taken. I trust your remark amused your friends.
The content of the question is self-evident and open-ended
The Trojan Horse argument you stipulate is clever,
but more of a Straw Man. I trust you are familiar with syllogistic logic?
If you want to split hairs then 99% of All post in Every thread do not meet the logical
criterion for Absolute Relevancy.

In any case, I reiterate, Conservative sovereign state,
Liberal sovereign state. I understand yours position(s)
you understand, (or choose not to,) mine.

Liberal, by definition is open-handed like a slap in the face. Conservative is tradition or structure-oriented-

I will debate anything, just define your terms..

Continuously re-defining the terms is the province
of liberals, holding onto ones principles and
terms of engagement is the conservative.

Another difference (in the extreme/idealized forms respectively)

Liberal=Empiricism and opportunism
Conservative=faith and personal accountability

SpatzieLover's avatar

@Crusader Please read your own question. No where in the details did it say you’d preach to us.

Looks like you’ve lost us all.

Try to discuss on your next question. participation is key when trying to join a new community.

Crusader's avatar

All of my posts represent why I would prefer a
conservative sovereign state.

Crusader's avatar

Thank you for your participation all.

fireside's avatar

I really don’t know why anyone wastes their time interacting with this guy. But I’ll go ahead and answer the question, however any quixotic replies may not get a response.

The biggest problem with segmenting the population into ideologue sovereigns is one of resources. Let’s say Crusader was king of the Mormon conservative sate and he realized that his people didn’t have enough wood to make theri houses, or oil to use in their cars. What would happen?

He would have to request those resources from another state. If the other states that that king crusader was not worthy of that support, then they would refuse the request and Crusader’s people would move away and join other states that may be similar to their values.

We already have battles over how funding should be spent and what rights the government has. If there were 50 sovereign states then the issue would be multiplied, not reduced. This would lead to wars over resources (much like we see today between nations that do not share similar ideologies).

The only way forward in integration and recognition of the other as an ally, not an adversary.

SpatzieLover's avatar

@fireside Agreed!
These are reasons my ancestors came, fled, and moved to the great US of A!

Imagine HOW bad life must’ve been for ancestors, that they risked their lives going on a boat to a place they only HEARD about (saw no pics) before coming.

fireside's avatar

@SpatzieLover – Yeah, I can’t imagine what it was like for someone like my grandmother who was born in a house that had basically been dug into the side of a hill and lived in a town of 5,000 people when she decided to get on a boat and cross thousands of miles of ocean to a land she knew nothing about in order to start a new life.

fireside's avatar

geez, that first post was not edited at all i guess. someday i’ll learn.

Qingu's avatar

It is interesting that conservatives—instead of threatening to move somewhere else—are threatening to secede.

When Bush was president, I actually tried to move to Canada. So did a lot of liberals, I imagine, and I’m sure more threatened to. But I don’t know any liberals that threatened secession.

It’s interesting because there’s nowhere for conservatives to move to. The places that resemble their ideal type of country—that is, theocracies, or countries with no governments—are wastelands like Saudi Arabia and Somalia. They can’t move to Europe, because they’re progressive. The world is literally moving right on past them. Liberals could hitch a ride with someone else, but conservatives can’t, so they feel they have to secede. It’s pathetic.

fireside's avatar

I like what Colbert said, “Texas threatens to secede. Oklahoma – better get started on that border fence”

tinyfaery's avatar

Can someone explain to me how faith and personal responsibility are connected?Where is the personal responsibility when you can commit every sin in the book, and then just have some dude take away all your sin? Where is the responsibility?

fireside's avatar

Isn’t that what Obama is trying to do with America’s image now?
Otherwise, huh? Did you waste your time trying to read his posts?

adreamofautumn's avatar

Seriously everyone, EVERY single thread @Crusader posts is actually just a thinly veiled way to proselytize. We know this, yet we keep giving in. I propose a revolution! The aims of the revolution are that we all stop buying into the bullshit game. Every thread has ended this same way. If I wanted someone to shove their religion down my throat every time I tried to answer a question I would go find a church.

Qingu's avatar

But I actually want to know what exactly he’s proselytizing. Convert to Christianity? Like evangelical fundamentalist Christianity? Or white power Christianity? Or Mormonism? I also understand he believes in astral projection?

adreamofautumn's avatar

I’m pretty sure it’s Mormonism, because he’s defended it a referred to it as a “tolerant” community and one that should be supported in previous threads.

ubersiren's avatar

I believe we can still be the UNITED states as someone mentioned up there, and still live the way we would want to ideally. I think liberals can live the way they want, conservatives the way they want, libertarians, anarchists, etc can all live the way they want without segregation. They can all live on one street… but that’s only if everyone would agree to stop pushing their agendas and be more tolerant and understanding. That won’t ever happen, though. We all need each other to survive- none of us is equipped with every skill necessary to survive on our own. So, we need to live together. But we don’t have to live the same exact way. We can be united without being “one.” But most people don’t understand how.

wundayatta's avatar

I would like to point out (and I apologize if someone already said this—there was too much to read), that if we designated various states as for this group or that, there would be hell to pay in making it happen. It would be a form of ethnic cleansing. People would not want to leave their homes to relocate in a safer place. Since it can’t happen, it really doesn’t matter if one says “yes” or no.”

In any case, nothing is stopping people from forming communities of like-minded people. If they can sell the idea, and, in the process, pressure not-like-minded people to go elsewhere, they might, de facto, create such a scenario. Let the market decide.

galileogirl's avatar

Problem 1. Changing the federal and every state constitution
Problem 2. Partitioning, every time this has been done in history, it has led to generations of violence and the destruction of economies.
Problem 3. The intolerant religious will be in for a big disappointment. Many people are willing to spend an hour a week with people who share their version of the bible but living with them 24/7/52 might be way too much.
Problem 4. Who gets what? The “Refuse to Affiliate” group would be the largest so of course we would get the coasts and we would demand that we would get an equal per capita area of land. That would leave the “You MUST accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior” group in the NE corner of N, Dakota and the Mormons would lose half of Utah.

Remember a break up seldom leaves anybody happy, but the people who want it the most generally end up with the least.

wundayatta's avatar

@galileogirl: in support of Number 3, I would point to the impact of the Taliban on Afghanistan and Pakistan.

cwilbur's avatar

@galileogirl: Still, the question posited that all participants consented. I’d have no problem with a bunch of conservative co-religionists setting up a town or a county somewhere.

And honestly, I would love to live 24/7/52 with people who shared my views of the Bible. Well, not exclusively, because there are people I’d miss. And I’d say that if you don’t want to live in a community with people who share your religion, there’s something seriously screwy about your religion.

galileogirl's avatar

@cwilbur The stipulation that all citizens consent is ridiculous. 330 million Americans? We can’t even agree on Daylight Savings Time let alone a confederation of theocracies. However you and your coreligionists are welcome to check out North Dakota next January. You don’t need a legal segregation agreement. I’m sure if you make a good offer, most of the locals will be willing to sell out for warmer climes and y’all can bible yourself blue.

Crusader's avatar

Interesting assertions, Galileogirl,

Your posits are well-constructed and address most of the relevancy of the post. However, as far as the likelihood of consent, that is not the question, ‘if all participants are willing’ is the stipulation. This thread was designed not to discuss the logistical feasability of such a manuever, but the opinions of why or why not it would be a good idea given participants, (elected officials) are willing.

That said, it is interesting that virtually All ethnic groups in the world that embrace a conservative form of Protestant Christianity on any level, are in colder, northern latitudes, the only exception, South Africa, (fewer every year, unfortunately,) Australia, and New Zealand. Also, the majority are Caucasion, though certainly not all. Evidently to preserve a conservative protestant heritage and society the people need to be Far North or Far South. Or, as in the case of middle America, Isolated in generally inhospitable continental climates.

Crusader's avatar


Also, to answer your
1.) Texas state constitution allows for secession, So, in this case, a federal amendment only would be required.
2.) Paritioning has also lead to advanced governing models and increased accountability for Lords of Empire.
3.) Again, participation is optional, Liberal Lands arenotfar away, and anything goes there…
4.) Partishioning would reflectpopulation,yes,and resources.Historically and currently conservative areas would remain so as would historicall liberal areas.

Thus, everyone is happy : ) Though the liberal would need to
work harder as there would not be as large a group to subsidize them, (though massive immigration could cushion their posteriors for a generation or two until pubic services and land would at the breaking point, about time then to manufacture a War against the more responsible conservatives I suppose…)

cwilbur's avatar

@galileogirl: no, not that all 330 million Americans consented, but that the people actually living there consented. This is the cornerstone of the federal system: that the people get to determine how to govern themselves, and that the laws in one area don’t have to be the same as the laws in another area. How does it hurt you if a bunch of people in a town somewhere unanimously decide they want to live in a way you don’t approve of?

And I think you have seriously misread my posts if you think I’m a fundamentalist.

nayeight's avatar

Geez. This thread is so ridiculous. @Crusader….what is your deal? You’re creepy and no one understands you. I do find it interesting that the overwhelming majority of Mormons are white. Has anyone here been to the Polynesian Cultural Center in Honolulu? It’s run by the LDS. All the Polynesian people who work there are students who converted and get to attend the LDS college there for free. Weird!

galileogirl's avatar

@cwilbur It wouldn’t hurt me because I live in an area where people respect the beliefs of others. However, you might want to ask the people of Wasco County, Oregon what kinds of problems they had including deliberate food poisoning.

I still say your best bet is not trying to get consent but rather put your money where your mouth is. Of course you understand even a “purchased” community has a limited life span because individuals could not have property rights. The minute an individual sold or left their property to someone outside the group the agreed upon limitations could not be enforced.

A couple of examples:
1. At one time everyone in Utah had a tithe taken out of their paychecks for the Mormon Church. At the time it was legal to discriminate based on religion so it was agree or not have a job. In the ‘60’s the Supreme Court ruled it illegal.
2. As the suburbs grew in 40’s and 50’s, the deeds in developments included language that prevented the sale of houses to members of other racial groups. In 1964 a California state proposition to overturn those restrictions was voted down. (People wanted to keep “like-minded” neighbors) Again the Supreme Court said imposed segregation was illegal.

As far as Texas, or anyone else, seceding-that was settled in 1865 AFTER Texas attempted to secede February 1, 1861.

I really wish you guys had paid attention in your social studies classes so your arguments made sense.

cwilbur's avatar

@galileogirl: I did pay attention in my social studies classes. You seem to be deliberately ignoring the premise of the question: everyone involved consents. Now, I could speculate about your reasons for this—principally, that you are nowhere near as tolerant as you claim to be, based on your slams directed at people who have a religious faith different than yours—but that would get us about as far as your speculations about how stupid the rest of us are, and how little attention we paid in school. Perhaps you are an aberration in the area you live, where everyone else reportedly respects the beliefs of others.

Consent makes the difference. In the case of your example 1: nothing prevents people who agree from donating a tithe to the church of their choice. Remember, since you seem to have a short attention span on this matter, that everyone consents and so there is no objection to this tithe—thus, it doesn’t need to be written into law. Making it compulsory is illegal, but remember, everyone consents, so it doesn’t need to be made compulsory by law.

In the case of your example 2: it’s illegal to use contractual language to place restrictions on who people can sell to, but there’s similarly no law to compel people to sell their property to people they do not want to sell to. Remember, short attention span woman: everyone consents. Again, making it compulsory to sell only to people of certain ethnicities or religions is illegal, but because everyone consents, there’s no need to make it compulsory.

I really wish you had paid attention to the requirements the government can not place on the behavior of private citizens. One of us was not paying attention in social studies classes, but it sure as heck wasn’t me.

galileogirl's avatar

Everyone “consented” in Utah because no consent meant no job. As far as consenting to sell your property to someone based on religion is illegal too, but that is the basis of this hypothesis. As new community members buy in they would be compelled to abide by older members religious beliefs-Illegal! The govt also cannot compel the behavior of private citizens to follow religious principals. Your community could not exist over the long term. Sooner or later the “consentees” will die or move on and then the snakes will come back to Eden. lol

cwilbur's avatar

No, everyone did not consent in Utah, because the “consent” was forced. And no, I can sell my property to whoever I want, because it’s my property. I can put a real estate agent in hot water if I make some of my preferences clear to him or her, but when it comes down to it, I get to use whatever criteria I want to determine which offer to accept.

The premise here, that you seem unwilling or unable to grasp, is that everyone involved consents. The government cannot compel anyone to follow religious principles, but it cannot prevent people from following any religious principles they want to follow.

Are you even reading what you’re typing? Do you enjoy writing nonsense?

Response moderated
galileogirl's avatar

@Crusader Whoa! Are you German? OK you guys, that’s not why I asked-It’s the unrestrained caps.

@cwilber-Think it through. As soon as a home in Elysian Fields is sold to an outsider, you will not have full consent. Now put away those nits you’re picking and join us here on earth.

cwilbur's avatar

@galileogirl: Think it through. Why would an outsider want to buy a home there? Why would someone who believed in the project sell his or her home to an outsider?

Yes, it’s illegal to put a clause in a sale contract restricting who the buyer can sell to. Yes, it’s illegal to make a real estate agent discriminate on the basis of race or religion. No, it’s not illegal at all to let the buyer’s race or religion affect whether you want to sell your house to them.

galileogirl's avatar

People do all kinds of inexplicable things. It is beyond my comprehension why anybody would want to live among dogmatic, inward-focused isolationists, but then I also have the idea that life is about learning and using our God-given abilities to improve the species.

cwilbur's avatar

It is also beyond my comprehension why someone claiming to be tolerant would refer to people of faith as “dogmatic, inward-focused isolationists,” but I guess people’s self-image rarely matches the actuality.

galileogirl's avatar

I am not talking about people of faith, I have faith myself. I am referring to people who are so dogmatic that they are unable to allow different faiths, people who are so inward-focused that they won’t even look beyond their own experiences and people who want to live in isolation. And your statement about self-image is actually pure projection.

augustlan's avatar

[Mod says] Flame off, folks.

Answer this question




to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther