america
There was once a kingdom within which lay, at opposite ends two great cities. It had long been the tradition that each king, upon ascension, would choose one of the two cities to be his residence and it follows, the powers and priveleges that associate with the center of political power. Whichever city was chosen, it always sparked animosity in the other and caused strife between the two. Sometimes, the strife would lead to violence, bringing the entire kingdom to the brink of civil war. It came to pass that when the king was old and sick, and his son was preparing to succeed him, the two cities began earnestly trying to know the prince's mind and seek his favor so that he might choose their city for his throne.
The prince kept to himself and was wise, considering all points before coming to his decision. Upon his father's death, the new king called forth his scribes and messangers to proclaim the new seat of his reign. All were shocked when the king announced that he would not choose either city. Instead, he would declare his court to be in the countryside near the midpoint between the two great cities. The king went on to explain to those gathered that this would ensure fair access to representatives from both cities and even provide an opportunity for the oft forgotten rural farmers who did not live near either city. There was some concern about the king's decision. A few thought that the farmers should not be able to petition the king, but the king told all that they are no less subjects than the city-dwellers, since both country and city are within the domain of the kingdom. Most of those gathered praised the king's decision and his wisdom, celebrating him as a fair king. Those in the cities who were hopeful of having the advantage of the king's presence were able to accept the absence of the king because their hatred of their rival and fear that the king may have chosen to reside within their enemy's walls made them see the necessity of such a situation.
The king was heralded for most of his life. But, as the years passed, the king appeared before his subjects less and less. He had become weak and frail with age. And the memory of the hatred between the two cities faded while the generations passed. Soon, those in the cities began complaining loudly that the old king had destroyed the tradition of the kingdom and lessened its glory. Voices in each city now spoke out saying that if the court remained in the country it would be horrible for the kingdom. Since, they said, the king did not say that he disliked the cities, and the king never showed any preference for the petitions of the folks from the country over those from the folks who came from cities, it can be reasoned that the intent of the king was not to start a long standing tradition of equal access, but instead was just trying to encourage the cities to be more civil toward one another. Still more argued that the king never intended the country folk to have the amount of access to petition that they had gained because the king had resided amongst them. In fact, a great deal of resentment toward the rural subjects had festered within the cities. They argued that the country folk were few and poor and it was the cities that filled the kingdom's treasuries and armories. Some even reasoned that the rural people were not equal subjects.
And so, after the death of the fair king, the people of the cities pressed the heir, finally convincing him to move his court to one of the cities. When he did so, the animosity felt before soon surfaced and the fate of the kingdom was sealed. Whether torn apart completely through civil conflict or weakened so it fell to foreign invaders, the kingdom was doomed because it failed to have the vision of the fair king.
If you take the king in the countryside as secular government, I think the ideas behind the story are fairly apparent. The king did not place his court in the countryside because he favored the rural people over the city people. He placed it there so that the kingdom could have peace between the cities. Any benefits derived from this decision by the country people are mostly a side-effect of the solution, but a side-effect which has moral grounding since it does provide more equality to the oft neglected rural residents of the kingdom.
Remember, eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Peace can bring complacency and arrogance. The secular basis for our constitution was after bloody religious conflicts between protestants and catholics in England and all over Europe. Such conflicst still continue today. These examples are intra-faith conflicts. How much worse are the interfaith conflicts? Keeping the religious dog out of the political hunt is the only way to maintain civility, equality, and freedom. Baptism, communion, and religious bigotry are not foundational principles of our nation. They are contrary to the American ideal. A christian nation would not be America. A nation in which particular religious values have precedence by virtue of their religious origins would not be America. Pressing specific religious and moral views into the domain of the state will destroy America, conceptually if not physically.
Be a Patriot. Fight religious subversion of American values. Defend Liberty, Equality, and Justice for All.
The Southern Fried Skeptic
