America's Founding Fathers, despite their hit-and-miss wisdom, really knocked one out of the park with their constitutional addendum commonly known as the First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

It's unclear why they needed to come up with five seperate rights and then cram them all into one sentence, but nevertheless, it works.

The First Amendment is usually tossed about in the context of freedom of religion, speech and the press. The last part, about petitioning the government for a redress of grievances, isn't much of a headline-grabber. But the fourth right - the one allowing us to peaceably assemble - that's the unsung hero. And while letting people get together hasn't always worked out for the best, it's the notion that lays the foundation for everything from picket lines to political parties.

Of course, even the high-falutin' ideals of the founding fathers are subject to the Law of Unintended Consequences.

The Shakers were a religious sect that started in the 18th century, had its heyday in the 19th century, and sort of fizzled out in the 20th century, though that's a pretty respectable run, considering they forbad procreation. Their architecture and their furniture had (and still has) a major influence on American design. And they gave us some very practical inventions, too, like the screw propeller and clothespins. The Shakers used their right to peaceably assemble when they formed communities of the gender-segregated and sexually-repressed faithful throughout the Northeast.

The tradition of kooks banding together for a common purpose continues to this very day, with movements such as The Free State Project, which aims to pack the state of New Hampshire with enough Libertarians to field and elect candidates. Once this political critical mass is achieved, it's unclear whether they'll try to secede from the U.S., spread their revolt to other states, or just collapse under the weight of their own ill-conceived and dangerous policies.

But the real reason I'm on this rant today is because of a group called Christian Exodus, which has just recently come to my attention. Their goal?

"The time has come for Christians to withdraw our consent from the current federal government and re-establish the sovereign nation of South Carolina upon the Christian principles once so predominant in America."

Further, they promise "the return of constitutionally limited government," which is ironic, since limiting the intrusion of government is probably the precise opposite of what they want.

Suddenly, New Hampshire doesn't look like such a bad idea.

The Exodus folks have a very detailed timetable for their coup d'etat, one which culminates in 2016 with their secession from the United States. A large part of me wants to flip them the bird and stamp a muddy a footprint on their collective ass as they go, but another part would rather see them take Guam or the Marshall Islands, or some other little spit of land we wouldn't miss so much. Perhaps Delaware.

I feel that somebody down in South Carolina should remind these guys that, in the past, secession as a means of political problem-solving has gone over like a fart in church.
Christian Exodus