I assume that you monitor this board. Here is a theoretical legal question that I have been pondering for over a year now. Of course, you can not respond to it, but here it is nonetheless:
1. Assume that we have a community of people who live somewhere in the heartland of the United States called "US Homeland." This community is 100 miles wide by 100 miles long in size.
2. Assume that those folks who live there are about 1,000 in number.
3. Assume that they incorporate themselves as a city, town or some similar fascimilee, and legally call themselves, for the sake of argument, "The City of US Homeland." (It really does not matter what they call themselves from a legal perspective; it just sounds neat to me to call them what I called them)
4. Assume that they all (all of the members of this City) just so happen to be Aethists having NO religious affilitation.
5. Regarding number 4, I know that it is statistically unlikely, however it is certainly possible for this statistical quirk to occur. It is not impossible.
6. Now, assume that The Vatican decides to downsize and move out of Rome in Italy.
7. Assume that they decide to move their entire operation to our thinly populated little theoritical town called "US Homeland" because it has plenty of cheap land around it.
8. Would those Aethists who support that legal entity called the town of "US Homeland" be required by federal law (or any other law) to provide the infrastructure to support "The New Vatican"?
9. If so, why would that not be, in effect, state supported religion since none of those persons in "US Homeland" would be members of that church or benefit therefrom? It would cost all of these Aethists money to support religion (in general) which they reject as a whole.
10. For those Aethists who live in our theoritical town called "US Homeland" this church called "The New Vatican" would totally take over "US Homelands" soverinty and intrude on the right of "US Homelands" to home rule, or am I wrong on this and does "The New Vatican" have the right to do that to those folks?
11. For those Aethists who live in our theoritical town called "US Homeland," this church would be supported by the "state" and thus be state sponsered religion despite the total lack of adherance to this faith by its state sponsered supporters. Why would this be legal constitutionally?
12. If they (a church) can do this to that town, what is to stop any corporation from declaring themselves to be a church and doing the mentioned situation to our town called "US Homeland?"
13. Why would any corporation not declare themselves to be a so called Church? (Check out Howard Hughes and Soma)
12. These questions are rhetorical, but they bug me when I think of what is going on here in RT, which is a subset situation of the one described given that nobody in this town belongs to this cc thing.
