[Leonard D Neubache]

"The hate us 'cause they ain't us".

It boils down to this simple fact every time, and like idiots, we in the Christian nations of the West give the benefit of the doubt to every asshole who isn't us and all those people who aren't us do exactly what nature drives them to do. They take advantage of our levels of kindness that have long since ventured into the realms of stupidity.

My best guess is that you can run a nation to the benefit of one race and several religions or one religion and several races. But what you can't do is run a nation to the benefit of multiple religions AND races.

Racial homogeneity is a genetic driver we are born with and can learn to suppress. Religious homogeneity is a purely cultural driver that we are taught (though there is evidence that some religions flourish when coupled with certain genetics). My preference is for the latter since folk are born where they're born and at least religion is something you can choose for yourself. In any case I would sooner turn my back to a devout black Christian over a devout white muslim.

Christendom needs to find its balls and simply motivate all other religions to leave its lands and exclude themselves from influencing Christian nations, though I'm not holding my breath on that. When the founding fathers enshrined religious freedom they really failed to perceive a possible future where their nation would be stupid or corrupt enough to allow the presence and influence of rival religions to Christianity. If you asked them "don't you worry that jews might corner American finance and media, or that muslims might arrive in droves and terrorise your descendants" they would collapse in fits of laughter.

"Who would be so stupid as to admit those people here in the first place", they would ask?

"Who would tolerate their abuses without driving them back into the sea?"

A house divided cannot stand and we have welcomed that division for far too long. Inevitably there will be war. Whether that can be confined to a religious war or whether it spills towards race is still to be determined. But when the dust settles we can only hope that Christians have been hardened to the point where they enshrine their religion (or at least all variants of it) as the only acceptable practice in their lands and all subsequent lands they invade upon suffering from extra-national aggression.

Israel for the jews. Christendom for the Christians.

[Samseau]

I've always wanted "Freedom of Religion" changed to "Freedom of Christianity."

[YossariansRight]

(12-13-2017 06:38 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

I've always wanted "Freedom of Religion" changed to "Freedom of Christianity."

Interesting.

Personally, I couldn’t care less who or what people worship, like I wrote on the previous page...the Holy Trinity, Buddha, L. Ron Hubbard...whatever.

Actually, if the Mohammedans weren’t all “decapitate and bomb”, I’d be ZFG about them too. Have fun fucking goats and dressing your women up in beekeeper uniforms.

But they’re another “permanently aggrieved” group that looks for reasons to get bomby. Always have, it’s hardwired in their code. That’s the problem.

But yes, if The Founding Fathers could have seen 200 years out, "Freedom of Christianity”, amongst many other things, would have been written into The Constitution.

[Leonard D Neubache]

It's about minimalising the number of outgroups you have fighting for a separate and ever-growing piece of the national pie. Freedom of religion is a particular problem because it raises the question of how it can be provided if the practices of that religion contravene the laws of the land.

What idiot would choose to obey the laws of man over the laws of his God at anything other than gunpoint (and maybe not even then)? Who would choose to uphold the law at the cost of his mortal soul? So why is it any surprise that minority religious groups form huddled fraternities in which they can disobey the laws of the majority with impunity and practice their religion as they see fit?

And of course at that point they by definition they are no longer patriots but subversives.

Even racial issues can pale by comparison. Native land rights and self determination of aboriginal populations is pretty much where the buck stops in terms of creating different laws for different races. The few wingnuts and fruitloops who demand that blacks and whites should have separate laws governing them are fringe dwellers who nobody takes seriously, in no small part because we inherently recognise how biased and unworkable such a system would be, yet so many of us somehow think that when we skip from racial solidarity to religious loyalties that "one size fits all" is somehow workable.

It's not.

The inevitable upshot is what we see in the UK, which has the eternal shame to bear of allowing sharia courts to rule on civil matters when muslims seek redress against other muslims. In my opinion there is no societal stain greater than this one in all of Christendom. It is a total and utter surrender of sovereignty, and yet it is a natural by-product of religious freedom.

Multiculturalism doesn't work. Culture is one part nature and one part nurture. We can manage diverse nature or we can manage diverse nurture, but we can't manage both.