The Sanity of Christian Secession

In the two essays preceding this one—namely, “The Immortality of Christian Secession” and “The Morality of Christian Secession”—a number of moral points concerning the idea of secession were articulated and addressed. And while those essays argued that there is nothing immoral about the idea of secession, and that, at times, secession can actually be a downright positive moral course of action for a country to take, this essay will expand on this general theme and argue that secession is also sometimes the healthiest and most sane course of action for a country to engage in. Indeed, as this essay will seek to show, in certain circumstances, it is a country’s failure to engage in secession—thereby maintaining a forced and unnatural unity amongst people of widely varying identities—which is quite literally insane and toxin on a number of socio-cultural levels.

And so, to understand why secession can be a healthy and sane course of action, and to understand why it would be so for the United States of America, let us consider an interesting analogy.

An Analogy for the Sanity of Secession

Imagine, if you will, that you had a large family all living in an enormous house. In this family, there are numerous mature and older young-adults and college-aged children who still reside in the home. At the same time, there are also three grandparents who live in the house with the children. Additionally, the mother and father reside in the home as well. However, this marital couple now despises each other and they are fundamentally opposed to each other on almost every critical family decision that there is. In essence, they are a couple in name only, and, in reality, they are actually on opposite sides of nearly all moral, social, cultural, and political issues that affect the household. Furthermore, this divide between the husband and wife is getting greater every day.

Now, imagine that, once every four months, all the children in the house are allowed to vote for who will be the head of the household: the father or the mother. Thus, whichever parent the children vote for will have four months to push through their ideas and agenda within the house as a whole. Imagine further that, as it happens, nearly half of the children consistently vote for the mother. And not only do these children consistently vote for the mother, but they largely agree with her ideas and they despise the father and his bigoted “traditionalism” just as much as the mother does; additionally, these particular children also dislike their siblings who vote for the father. Finally, many of the children who vote for the mother also hold to certain identities—such as hard-core environmentalist, pagan, Progressive-Christian, LGBT activist, multiculturalist, globalist, etc.—which are in strong opposition to the identities held by the children who vote for the father. Now, on the flip-side, nearly half of the children in the house vote for the father, and they too mostly agree with the father and dislike both the mother and the children who vote for the mother. Furthermore, and as mentioned, these particular children also hold fast to certain identities—Conservative-Christian, nationalist, etc.—which are quite opposed to the identities of their mother-voting siblings. So, in the end, what you have in the household are a large number of individuals who are not voting so much on issues per se, nor are they rationally debating with the other side, but rather they are voting on a tribal basis which largely stems from the identities that they hold to. And as the moral and identitarian divide gets deeper and deeper between the opposing members of the household, voting along the lines of identity rather than policies becomes ever more prevalent, thereby undermining the whole idea of a rational, policy-based democratic process within the household.

So, in the end, with two large chunks of the children already set on who to vote for, the decision as to who runs the household is largely decided by a few of the so-called ‘independent’ children. Thus, in such circumstances, sometimes the mother wins the household elections, and sometimes the father wins. But what this all means is that every four months, one side or the other is not only severely disappointed with the results of the household election, but they seriously worry that the side now in power will start implementing policies in the household which threaten their own worldview and their own sacred values. And because the father and mother were indeed elected in large part due to the policies that they claimed they would implement around the house, once elected, they do push for some of their policies, which naturally causes big chunks of the opposing side of the family to go crazy with rage and/or worry.

It should, however, be noted that in the house, there does exist a set of core family rules which were established before the kids were born and which neither one of the parents is supposed to overturn regardless of whether they win the election or not. This is a sort of ultimate “house rules” document. However, the problem is that one side views these rules as flexible and open to a modern and progressive “interpretation”. Thus, these unchanging rules are often bent, and sometimes “interpretations” are found to these rules that appear to be quite at odds with the core document itself. Furthermore, one side often strives to have this founding document “interpreted” in a manner that just happens to be largely in-line with their political and cultural values, as opposed to the values linked to the document itself or to the values that were existent when the document was written. Consequently, what this means is that regardless of the existence of this founding document for the rules of the household, in reality, each side is indeed striving to push its own view of the world onto the whole house against the wishes, desires, and core values of the opposing side of the household divide. And so, as stated, every four months, and for the time in-between, one side views the other side with disdain, fear, hostility, and even contempt, and yet the whole family continues to live in the same house under all this tension.

Now, since neither side likes losing power even after the household elections occur, very often what happens is that regardless of the decision that the side in power takes, the other side runs to the grandparents to claim that the decision taken by the side in power is illegitimate. And the reason that the grandparents are consulted in such cases is because in the founding document of the house, the grandparents are enshrined as the final arbiters for any claim where it  is alleged that one of the decisions made by the parents goes against the house’s founding document. In essence, the grandparents are the judges of the household. Thus, whenever a claim of illegitimate parental decision-making is brought before them, the grandparents assess the claim and then they make a determination concerning it. These determinations often overturn the decision of the parent currently in power or they force the parent to change how the decision is implemented. Furthermore, at times, and for very contentious issues, the disputes even go all the way up to the great-grandparent living in the house, who has the final say on what decisions are or are not in line with the household’s ultimate family rules. Now, in the past, when the mother and father shared the same general values, this whole system worked well and appeared to be quite just. Indeed, in the past, the grandparents could be trusted to be fairly objective and were often perceived as such. However, because of the cultural and social animosity that currently exists between the parents, and because the grandparents are obviously related to one parent or the other, this system has recently started to break down and expose its clear partisan roots, for each grandparent now just largely supports whichever parent is related to him. Thus, many of the judgements of the grandparents—at least about major cultural issues—are nearly forgone conclusions depending on which parent is in charge. Thus, the grandparents have become just as political as the parents are. And so, the grandparents are often just acting as partisan hacks even while pretending to be objective and neutral arbiters of the household’s critical ruling document.

So, in the end, what you have is a house where a large portion of one half of the household dislikes, disdains, and even genuinely fears the other half of the household; and yet, every four months, either one side or the other gets to take the reins of power and push their agenda onto the half of the household that despises that agenda and feels that it is a threat to their core values. Furthermore, even when one side is in power, the other side can appeal to the black-robed grandparents to have their own agenda pushed even in contravention to the “democratic” will of the household. Consequently, this household exists in this state of tension, disagreement, and something akin to a questionable democracy where the so-called ‘will of the people’ is at times overturned by a partisan judicial oligarchy. Furthermore, this tension and disagreement is only increasing and becoming more volatile as time passes and as the fundamental values of both sides of the household move further and further apart. And this is not even to mention the problems (such as information leaks) caused by the partisan children who hold positions of great responsibility and power in the household—such as dealing with the finances, or educating the younger children, or maintaining the infrastructure of the house—but who are nevertheless unelected and who cannot be easily removed from their role. These permanent household “administrators”, given their partisan nature, also subtly undermine the democratic will of the household even though they are supposed to be neutral. But given the tensions and vast cultural differences that presently exist in the household, in many cases, only the pretense of neutrality remains amongst these various household administrators.

Now, in light of the above analogy, I ask you: Would having such a family life be a healthy way to live? Would it even be sane? I humbly submit that it would be none of those things. Indeed, such a living situation would be profoundly unhealthy, dysfunctional, and even borderline insane. And make matters worse, not only would the living arrangement described above be unhealthy and arguably irrational, but it would be doubly so for one specific reason: namely, that a separation of the household into its two largely distinct constituents could be quite simply arranged in this circumstance, and so there is no significant reason to remain one household in such a situation. After all, since the house is large, it could be made into a duplex, where each side of the family could finally live under the rules that it wanted without having to be in a constant struggle over its core values with the other side. Furthermore, since both the father and the mother work, then each side would have the financial resources to survive without the other side. Additionally, since each side of the familial struggle is a relatively large chuck of the family’s population, then it is not as if this separation would be implemented by the family’s black sheep; rather, both sides of the struggle are sizeable enough to form their own respective and functioning households. Furthermore, since each member of the house has his or her own room, it would be relatively simple to divide up the house in an orderly fashion. There is also enough furniture and stuff that both sides of the family could be stocked and have all their needs met if the family separated. Finally, any debts that the household owed could be divided up equitably between the two groups.

Thus, the conditions for a separation of the aforementioned household are nearly ideal. It is not as if the house is tiny, which would make separation very difficult. Nor is one side of the family the owner of all the resources while the other side would be destitute upon separation. Nor is the group that would separate just a tiny fringe minority. Nor is there any overarching reason to remain united. Indeed, the truth is that such a household would be an excellent candidate for separation, and a separation would be a healthy and rational course of action for this household to take. And while such a separation might not be easy, in this particular case, such a separation would nevertheless be relatively simple and quite manageable.

So, in the end, and as the analogy above shows, it can be argued that (1) when the conditions for separation are very good, and (2) when the reasons for separation are strong, and (3) when each side of the political divide is seeking to force values and ideas which threaten the core and fundamental values and worldview of the other side, then separation and secession is a very healthy and rational course of action to consider.

The Sanity of American Separation

Now, as is obvious, the above analogy is meant to mirror the situation in the United States today. And as with all analogies, the aforementioned one is not perfect, but the point it makes still stands: under certain conditions—conditions which the United States is perilously close to meeting—the separation of a state into two or more different countries is often the healthiest and most rational thing to do to solve the problems that plague that state and its citizens.

And again, note that a fundamental point here is that large portions from each side of the political divide in the United States believe that the other side represents an almost existential threat to them. After all, in the United States, many individuals on the liberal, progressive, secular/religious Left believe that American traditionalists and right-wingers want to institute something like an Iranian-style theocracy in the United States where homosexuals are stoned, where religious rules are enforced with zeal, where immigration is stopped, where women die in back-alley abortions, and where the separation of Church and State is non-existent. And while such left-wingers are exaggerating in their worry of what religious right-wingers would wish to see in the United States, the progressive and globalist Left is not wrong in believing that traditional and orthodox Christians would want the United States to become much more culturally and socially traditional and Christian in the future. But, on the one hand, many orthodox Christians and traditionalists believe that left-wing progressives and liberals want to institute something like a soft-totalitarian secular regime in the United States where religious people are allowed to “worship” in their own head, but where such traditional religious people cannot bring their beliefs into the public square, and where religious “hate” speech can be suppressed as “harmful to victim groups”, and where traditional individuals can be forced to violate their consciences on abortion or assisted-suicide (or just lose their jobs instead), and where the separation of Church and State is just a front for the State to crush the Church without the Church having a chance to fight back, and so on and so forth. And the religious-right is not wrong in their fear of progressives in this respect, for many on the progressive-left do want to implement such policies, and often have implemented such policies in areas where they have control, such as in academia. So, each side is indeed seeking to impose their will on the other side, be it through politics or through the courts. And so again, this is the point: when politics becomes a means of pushing core values onto a group that is fundamentally opposed to those values, and when democratic politics and judicial decisions become little more than identity-based power plays, and when the separation of two opposing groups is a viable option, then separation and secession is an entirely healthy and rational course of action to take. And since this is becoming more and more the case in the United States, then secession in American needs to start being seriously considered as one way by which America’s cultural problems can be resolved.

Now, some readers might object that the present division in the United States is less pronounced than its appears. Indeed, they may claim that things are not as bad as they seem and that most people are simply happy to live their lives and get on with their business. However, in response to such a claim, the first point to make is that the various political divisions in the United States between Democrats/Liberals/Globalists and Republicans/Conservatives/Nationalists shows that there is something real about the disunity within America. And this is especially the case as large portions of the base of both the Democrats and the Republicans move further away from each other on critical social issues—and this separation is only growing, not getting smaller. After all, the large divisions within the American populace over such things as abortion, homosexual marriage, immigration, schooling, guns, etc. all show the massive divide between large chunks of the American populace. Indeed, America is not like Canada or Europe, where those traditionally called ‘social conservatives’ are an utterly spent force, and where social issues like abortion are not even really debated anymore; rather, in the United States, the social aspect of the right-wing is still quite strong, and so the socio-cultural divides in America are real, strong, and deep. But even if the strong divisions in America were more perceptual than actual, the fact is that perceptions matter, and how things appear to be is often how things are taken to be. So, even if, for the sake of argument, it is accepted that Americans on both sides of the political spectrum may be closer together than they believe, the fact is that they actually see themselves, and thus act, as if they are far apart. And that perception of division matters a great deal.

And so, the long and short of it is this: secession is often a healthy and rational course of action, especially in a country were secession is truly viable. Indeed, in a country were massive chucks of the populace are diametrically opposed to each other on numerous fundamental cultural and social issues, and where each side is using political means to threaten the core values of the other side, then secession between such parties is not only healthy and rational, but it may very well be the healthiest and most rational thing that a country could do. And that is why, for the health and sanity of its overly diverse citizens, the United States may need to become dis-united as it moves forward into the future.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s