blueskies
September 16th, 2004, 07:41 PM
by George
Eric Thomson trotted out the tired old bromide that our old native European religions were superior to Christianity and the other two Abrahamic religions because the old European folk religions were tolerant of other religions, no doubt due to their polytheistic theology. The argument made is that this commendable tolerance inhibited vicious internecine bloodshed. The erudite Dr. Oliver, a fellow I respect every bit as much as I do Eric, made the same point repeatedly, except that he made the old Persian state religion of Zoroastrianism ground zero of the scourge of intolerant monotheism, positing that the old Persian monotheists spawned the Abrahamic religions.
Ironically, the astute Dr. Oliver also pointed out the Marxists' shifty historical two step, wherein the attributes of a degenerate and decaying Roman empire, such as tolerance of alien religions, inundation of Italian soil by the mangiest rabble from the farthest reaches of the empire, "liberated" Roman wives who refused to birth future generations, control of the government by Jewish imperial "secretaries", etc. were disingenuously presented as being characteristic of the early, vigorous Roman Republic that had ironically created the very wealth and infrastructure that made the hedonistic profligacy of their irresponsible successors possible. As a great classical historian whom the good Dr. Oliver quoted had written in one of his magisterial turn of the century tomes (I believe the classicist's name was Dr. Nielsen): "When one speaks of Rome, one must specify whether it is the Rome of 200 BC or the Rome of 200 AD." The same applies to the United States (the United States of Andrew Jackson vs. the United States of the post SWTKWP Pax Judaica).
If one looks at the great civilizations of the world, one notes that EVERY ONE OF THEM, while on the path to greatness and before it became decadent, had a state religion that brutally suppressed ALL other religions. Religious tolerance, like racial tolerance, tolerance for sexual deviants and barren career twats, and all other JudeoMarxist tolerances, is the signature of either an uncivilized populace or a dying civilization. I say this as a free thinking agnostic. Unlike the antisocial Marxist "humanists" I am a true humanist, that is, a lover of Mankind, most strongly those of my blood. As silly as I find a belief in bearded toga wearing sky thunderers (invariably sitting on remote mountain tops or heavenly thrones somewhere whence they rain down thunderbolts on mischievous mortals) to be, history shows that such belief systems, so long as they are not alien beliefs imposed from without, but rather are organically created and thus representative of the people's race soul, are absolutely essential to society. Thus any opposition to them is an act of treason. I am not of course arguing the merits of Christianity, a dangerous and alien religion, but for the necessity of a native and very intolerant state religion.
In my opinion, this country was doomed from the beginning. Even though, as some have pointed out, the constitution does not require the erection of the metaphorical wall separating church and state, the amendment forbidding the establishment of a state religion as well as the entire tenor of the writings of the founders make clear that such a separation was their intent. If you have a healthy, sane, society with a religion grounded rationally in their collective race soul, why the @#$%&^?! do you need to separate church and state? Such a separation is an admission that you have a faulty society. In the case of the founding of this country, the problem was not so much a witch's brew of "nonwestern" religions like Judaism, Hinduism, Islam and Buddhism, but rather a Christian Tower of Babel comprising dozens of incompatible Christian denominations -- hence the need for the constitutional band aid.
Eric Thomson trotted out the tired old bromide that our old native European religions were superior to Christianity and the other two Abrahamic religions because the old European folk religions were tolerant of other religions, no doubt due to their polytheistic theology. The argument made is that this commendable tolerance inhibited vicious internecine bloodshed. The erudite Dr. Oliver, a fellow I respect every bit as much as I do Eric, made the same point repeatedly, except that he made the old Persian state religion of Zoroastrianism ground zero of the scourge of intolerant monotheism, positing that the old Persian monotheists spawned the Abrahamic religions.
Ironically, the astute Dr. Oliver also pointed out the Marxists' shifty historical two step, wherein the attributes of a degenerate and decaying Roman empire, such as tolerance of alien religions, inundation of Italian soil by the mangiest rabble from the farthest reaches of the empire, "liberated" Roman wives who refused to birth future generations, control of the government by Jewish imperial "secretaries", etc. were disingenuously presented as being characteristic of the early, vigorous Roman Republic that had ironically created the very wealth and infrastructure that made the hedonistic profligacy of their irresponsible successors possible. As a great classical historian whom the good Dr. Oliver quoted had written in one of his magisterial turn of the century tomes (I believe the classicist's name was Dr. Nielsen): "When one speaks of Rome, one must specify whether it is the Rome of 200 BC or the Rome of 200 AD." The same applies to the United States (the United States of Andrew Jackson vs. the United States of the post SWTKWP Pax Judaica).
If one looks at the great civilizations of the world, one notes that EVERY ONE OF THEM, while on the path to greatness and before it became decadent, had a state religion that brutally suppressed ALL other religions. Religious tolerance, like racial tolerance, tolerance for sexual deviants and barren career twats, and all other JudeoMarxist tolerances, is the signature of either an uncivilized populace or a dying civilization. I say this as a free thinking agnostic. Unlike the antisocial Marxist "humanists" I am a true humanist, that is, a lover of Mankind, most strongly those of my blood. As silly as I find a belief in bearded toga wearing sky thunderers (invariably sitting on remote mountain tops or heavenly thrones somewhere whence they rain down thunderbolts on mischievous mortals) to be, history shows that such belief systems, so long as they are not alien beliefs imposed from without, but rather are organically created and thus representative of the people's race soul, are absolutely essential to society. Thus any opposition to them is an act of treason. I am not of course arguing the merits of Christianity, a dangerous and alien religion, but for the necessity of a native and very intolerant state religion.
In my opinion, this country was doomed from the beginning. Even though, as some have pointed out, the constitution does not require the erection of the metaphorical wall separating church and state, the amendment forbidding the establishment of a state religion as well as the entire tenor of the writings of the founders make clear that such a separation was their intent. If you have a healthy, sane, society with a religion grounded rationally in their collective race soul, why the @#$%&^?! do you need to separate church and state? Such a separation is an admission that you have a faulty society. In the case of the founding of this country, the problem was not so much a witch's brew of "nonwestern" religions like Judaism, Hinduism, Islam and Buddhism, but rather a Christian Tower of Babel comprising dozens of incompatible Christian denominations -- hence the need for the constitutional band aid.