Separation of Church and State

>>134048230
>Is this actually completely possible?
Only by force just like the commies, other than that no

File: 205992.gif (6KB, 100x100px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 100x100px

>>134048230
>russian orthordoxy
>literally the worst kind of christendom
Nope.

>>134048230
the bible would be law if it wasn't

>>134048230
>God is everywhere
>even in the toilet
>He can se your cunny
>is your cunny clean for God?
>your cunny does not belong to you
>it belongs to God - the ultimate man
>but in His mercy, other men may borrow your cunny
>worshipping your cunny is worshipping God
>therefore CP with your cunny are icons

Why is there not a christian country influenced by biblical law? There are few Muslim countries which use Islamic law and Israel is a Jewish country, why no christian country?

File: 1500347252645.png (234KB, 325x501px) Image search: [Google]

234KB, 325x501px

The government needs biblical principles enforced.

America must become a theocracy free of sin.

>>134048230
problem isnt the mixing of religion and state but the mixing of bad religions with state, resulting in bad states.

>>134048846
no one is free of sin, even jesus admitted that. the point is sin is forgiven, supposedly, which is absolutely corrupt. thank god i don't give a shit about dunecoon religions.

File: 20170526-marawi-empty-streets-10-jc.jpg (346KB, 950x633px) Image search: [Google]

346KB, 950x633px

>>134048230
Separation of Church anr State is anti-Christian in nature. It only separates Christian Churches (especially the Catholic Church) and the state. It doesnt apply with Islam and other religions at least in the case of my country. Pic related is an "islamic city" on my country where Sharia law is enforced

File: Accardo.jpg (30KB, 243x320px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 243x320px

>>134048839
Because the west experienced a political culture that rejects itself. Also left wingers refuse to understand that monarchy and Christian monarchy had given people the very first liberal rights, literally our political ability to attack christian nationhood ultimately was made possible by christian kings and nations.

>>134049040
Well your statement dosn't apply with Christianity wholly beacsue even christain monarchs understoud that they were not makers of church doctrine or the canon laws of the faith. Now in the islamic world that depends on the monarch

>>134048230
The better question is, is it desirable?

>>134049328
Yes, it is because it is not just necessarily it is true that faith must play a role in politics because people no matter what are religious animals just as political animals.

File: image.jpg (34KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 250x250px

Bible should be law.

>>134049438
Dude, i agree the problem with paganism and wicca is that they see everything as sprit. All matter is spirt. Total nonsense since a PC is not a spirt.

>>134048230

But there is seperation between church and state its where the usa is founded on , there are religious ideas but you can also have those ideas when you are a atheist . I have and will always hate fags

>>134048230
The argument against gay marriage is along the lines of marriage is an institutional tax incentive to encourage family growth and fertility, and homosexuals have no reason for it.
The argument against abortion, and contraception, is that it quantifiably increases births out of wedlock and single parenthood, despite the myth that it would decrease them - resulting in more poverty and violent crime.
I hope you don't think the Bible's version of social polity is arbitrary...

>>134048544
>>134048544
How was separation of church and state going when the Inquisition was having their human bonfires in your country? Or when the Muslims with no concept of separation of church and state invaded the fuck out of Anatolia? Oh that's right, only your religion is the right one and thus infallible, not the other couple thousand :^)

>what would the justification be against things like gay marriage
I'm not against gay marriage, but I do think that gay people who want to get married are retarded, since the very concept of marriage is religious in the first place. It's like gay people wanting to become priests. Why would you? Your religion literally thinks you should be killed.

>or abortion?
That one is harder to argue against. I am for abortion, but obviously the unborn fetus becomes something that could be considered a child at some point. Abortion is obviously fine, it's just a matter of where on the timeline you place it.
>Is cumming in a paper towel and throwing it out child murder?
Obviously not
>Is abortion as soon as the woman is actually pregnant child murder?
Obviously not, there's barely even anything there
>Is abortion the day before birth child murder?
Yes, clearly, and it should not be allowed
>Is abortion the day after birth child murder?
Well, you're murdering a literal child, so yes

The answer lies somewhere inbetween the day of conception and the day of birth, where exactly is indeed a difficult question to answer, but I don't think that the opinion of God should be involved, since he most likely doesn't exist. If he wants a word in the decision, I think he should come down here and make his case, loud and clear.

>>134049438
So jewish law? LOL kill yourself christcuck.

>>134049516
thats fucking stupid.

>>134049393
Thank you, I don't have to make the argument myself now. Glad to see the rest of us non-secular statists flooded into the thread

>>134049172
>I need kings to tell me that I need kings because kings made the idea there shouldn't be kings

Retard

>>134049438
>bible should be law
>posts an image
Meme flags were a mistake.

File: AbortionsByRaceNYC.jpg (51KB, 639x400px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 639x400px

>>134049600
> The argument against abortion, and contraception, is that it quantifiably increases births out of wedlock and single parenthood, despite the myth that it would decrease them - resulting in more poverty and violent crime.
Do you have any proof at all to back that up?

>>134049580
No it is not. The founders were clear for the idea that an established church is not possible because the king George the III kept all the others brands of chirstanity together and supported catholics and others. Then the presdient George Washingtonian was the most angican president who existed to hold offioce. Those ideas would ultiamly prove athiesm as a state policy to no be possiable. An atheistc state is impossible it needs an animating idea, which comes form religion. I would aruge that makes atheism false.

>>134049600
>No one got married before taxes or away from government ever
>contraception is bad because it increases births but homosexuality is bad

Use the state to enforce your religion elsewhere bootlicker.

>>134049040
>Separation of Church anr State is anti-Christian in nature.

>And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him.

Friend just give me 1 verse where jesus went all political

>Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

>>134049644
Saying it stupid without a valid reason! That's on you

>>134049648
That is not how monarchy or stronarmg rule works. Kings never made the idea that rhere shouldn't be kings nor did all the liberals.

>>134049901
Is there a famine up in Chicago? Stop eating letters.

>>134049646
Great, thank you for commenting. I would also aruge that it matters on what we find to be the ulitmalty truth which should rule are cultral viewpoint, which is inertly religious as it is gniostic

>>134049984
Hopefully for the niggers! I'm good

>>134049748
>stop killing based black men

File: Screenshot_50.jpg (172KB, 1038x613px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 1038x613px

>>134049796

This does not mean they wanted the church to rule

>>134048230
In france the separation of church and state historically comes from the 1905 law whcih says that
1° Frances ensures religious freedom
2° Tax musn't fund religions, and the state doesn't recognizes them.

Alsace/Lorraine is an exception for this because they didn't belong to France in 1905.

This law was the perfect thing to do imho, it is very well balanced and has accurate meaning, because yes, indeed, religious voters will still take decision according to their religious beliefs, as well as public servants.
As a taxpayer, I don't have to pay for wizardry and France do no longer call itself "christian country" and label me as a "christian" against my will.

File: absolutely tyrannical small.gif (4MB, 390x270px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 390x270px

>>134048230

Friendly reminder that Separation of Church and State is the White Man's institution.

>>134048230

Dear Retard,

The Separation of Church and State was to stop the STATE from interfering with the CHURCH. Now it has been perverted to mean the state can interfere with the church at will, and the church must not speak its mind.

>>134050008
It sure is reddit here.

>>134049748
https://www.brookings.edu/research/an-analysis-of-out-of-wedlock-births-in-the-united-states/
>Since 1970, out-of-wedlock birth rates have soared. In 1965, 24 percent of black infants and 3.1 percent of white infants were born to single mothers. By 1990 the rates had risen to 64 percent for black infants, 18 percent for whites. Every year about one million more children are born into fatherless families.
>Since 1969, however, shotgun marriage has gradually disappeared (see table 1). For whites, in particular, the shotgun marriage rate began its decline at almost the same time as the reproductive technology shock. And the disappearance of shotgun marriages has contributed heavily to the rise in the out-of-wedlock birth rate for both white and black women. In fact, about 75 percent of the increase in the white out-of-wedlock first-birth rate, and about 60 percent of the black increase, between 1965 and 1990 is directly attributable to the decline in shotgun marriages. If the shotgun marriage rate had remained steady from 1965 to 1990, white out-of-wedlock births would have risen only 25 percent as much as they have. Black out-of-wedlock births would have increased only 40 percent as much.

As for the correlation between single parenthood and crime/poverty, a quick google search is also all you need, it is EXTREMELY well documented and known for decades now.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=167327
>correlation is not causation
Doesn't matter.
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2012/11/27/correlation-and-causation-single-mothers-and-violent-crime/

>>134050066
No this is not true expect for Thomas Paine. that john Adams quote would also be contratced. Also common law did affect the thinking in the cukltrural sense of law. There were more pro relgion founders than these founders you wrote back. Check out Charles Carrol of carolington a catholic. In rregards to the church they meant protecting it.

>>134050110

or I mean to say, the church must refrain from politics, which is absurd and definitely not the Founder's intention. Not by a mile.

>>134048230
This is why organized religion (i.e. christianity) needs to be banned from having public influence. It serves as the foundation for a lot of right wing ideals that are commonly extreme. You cannot have a separation of church and state whilst people are under the influence of religious institutions which disallow for the individual to think freely (free from subjective moral codes, indoctrination, etc.).

File: klink and schultz.jpg (5KB, 260x194px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 260x194px

>>134050363
Compared to communism which is even wrose since it has the same ideal that marxits lennism is a religious truth. All marxists calim they have the truth so if they do ultimaly they must force it in the public. Also the greatest pro religionist and monarchits have been revolutionaries.

>>134050363
Nice try shlomo. In a time where pope licks feet and churches hide illegals and "refugees" church is leftiest than soviets ever could.

File: Praise-The-Son.exe.jpg (29KB, 600x670px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 600x670px

>>134049033
We must strive for perfection.

Jesus set the example and we are to follow it as closely as possible, people in the Goverment aren't doing that right now.

>>134050363

One thing that's great about the internet is that everything everyone does is logged on a NSA database. That means when we take over, we will be able to hunt you cretins down and mete justice.

File: Screenshot_51.jpg (88KB, 785x620px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 785x620px

>>134050231
>Many of the citizens of the original thirteen colonies, or their pioneering forebears, fled religious persecution in Europe. As a consequence, America’s Founding Fathers believed strongly in a separation of church and state. But what did this mean for early Americans insofar as the government and Christian worship were concerned? More precisely for judging the accuracy of this meme, what did the Framers say in this regard?

>The Founding Fathers were mostly concerned with preventing any one Christian sect from dominating another. They wished to avoid the centuries of religious warfare that wracked mainland Europe, pitting Protestants against Catholics, or Baptists against Quakers. University of Delaware professor Christine Leigh Heyrman explains this history:

>>134050008
Objective truths are what brought me to God after realizing that the bible has all the answers already, it just doesn't explain them with scientific research papers from the modern era, which I can't really blame considering it's dated literature.
In this case, I am more religious than spiritual in my faith in the Bible, however I have found spiritual faith by initially suspending disbelief during prayer and ceremony, I can't say it compares to someone dogmatically raised in the theology

>>134050494
This will happen soon beacsue the silence of the tradional based americans won't stay silent forever, and when they do wake up, boy will the left winger be destroyed by right wing death squads.

>>134050494
Who is Mete Justice and why does he work for the NSA?

>>134050462
You are incorrect and do not comprehend communism. Scientific inquiry is based on data, we do not claim anything is the truth based on subjective values, we base our conclusions off of data and science. Whereas religious christian zealots base it off of an ancient book that is filled with ethos.

>>134050585
all i could say is you can't say that your mstyical without a theolgical basis and the same vice versa.

ITT: crusader larpers, nazi larpers and commie larpers

>>134050483
I personally do not mind the free movement of humans, although I'm not bounded by societal norms built off of fairy tales like some. Although christianity is usually associated with extreme right wing idealogies, such as the Kul Klux Klan, Westboro Baptist Church, Crusaders, Irish Republican Army, Church of England (unjustified colonialism), etc.

>>134050640
That is not what Mao Zedong say or Enver Hoxha in there works. Scifitnc inquriy is based on turth the data reflects that. If you don't calim a turth then the ideas are not viable.

>>134050640
And what comment do you have on this then?
>>134050224
And what is your justification for gay marriage when there is no benefit to providing them with a tax incentive like there is for heterosexuals (eg. Ease burden of child rearing)

>>134050494 Here is another example of extremism from the religious right.
>>134050483

>>134050640
Just like you subjectively believe that Marx was part of the proletariat but in reality was objectively a bourgeoisie authoritarian.

File: 1477500315951.png (153KB, 2328x1514px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 2328x1514px

>>134050819

I'm not even religious. I just know what you are.

>>134050838
I cannot comprehend your spelling.

>>134049438
Why would we want a law that is filled with numerous internal contradictions?

>>134050535
1. The king kept the churches together.
2. The source please?
3. No they didn't there were more rleigiopus founders. people skip them.
4. they kept the plociy of the monarch and religious warfare name the cenrutires. I count two

>>134050640
Also
>we don't claim truth based on subjective values, we use science and data
>believe that the state will naturally dissolve

>>134050991
The secular law is just as flawed.

>>134049607
>with the seperation of church and state we achieve total peace guys
>only religious nuts innvade countries and do mass killings!

>>134050987
that's because you don't comprehend anything.

>>134050998
>4. they kept the plociy of the monarch and religious warfare name the cenrutires. I count two
I have no idea what that means. Is it some lovecraftian spell or something?

>>134050363
Religion isn't really right wing per se, but I get why people get things confused, considering how complicated the political compass is. There are several different spectrums that can be either left or right.

>Collectivism vs individualism
The left believes in prioritizing the group over the individual, and that anyone that has wealth should give a portion of it to the poor, regardless of how he obtained that wealth. That is the basis of communism and socialism. The right believes in the individual's right to privately own property and wealth, which goes hand in hand with capitalism

>Authoritarianism vs liberalism
The right is generally considered authoritarian and the left liberal, but I honestly don't think it makes much sense. Having a collectivist society that redistributes wealth and prioritizes the well-being of the group over the freedom of the individual requires a powerful authority. Liberalism and capitalism go hand in hand, see anarcho-capitalism for example.

>Progressive vs conservative
These are a little bit harder to fit on the spectrum but I personally feel like conservation goes hand in hand with authority, whereas progress goes hand in hand with liberty, but the simple way to describe them would be like this
Progressive: Freedom to change and openness to new ideas is very important. Without chaos, society will stagnate.
Conservative: Abiding by the tradition is important and new ideas are likely to be bad. Without order, society will degenerate.

>>134051223
Okay, so let's see where the abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism and Islam) and their ideals belong on these spectrums.
Collectivism vs individualism: They're very collectivist (in other words, left wing), help the poor, treat others like you want to be treated etc.

Authoritarianism vs liberalism: They're very authoritarian. The rules in all these religions are very strict and if you do not follow them, consequences are dire. The idea of God is basically the idea of the state. He is omnipotent and knows better than you, and you need not worry about why he does what he does. God works in mysterious ways, if god wills it etc.

Progressive vs conservative: They're very conservative. The traditions are strict and should be followed, and you should not change things, the texts are the divine word of God. Christianity is the most progressive of the three, but that's mostly because they had their modernizations along the way. If you read the old testament, it is extremely conservative. The new testament is more on the progressive side of course, but still very collectivist.

>>134050974
Thank you for proving you know nothing of communism. Communism can only exist in a global state, in which all countries are communist, no crime/poverty/hunger/etc. can exist, etc. Those were socialist states, which socialism is a stepping stone to communism, although it is frequently met with resistance from religious zealots. Hence why Karl Marx emphasized on religion being a barrier to socialism, and thus communism. It is also normal for death to occur under socialism, as there is fighting between the classes, usually the working class v. the upper classes, although the wealthy have shown how powerful they are in manipulating the working class as many revolutions have failed.

>>134051192
I meant to say that the monarch of britian kept the policy of toleration to all Christian churches until the american revolution. I can only think of two centuries of religious warfare in europe.

>>134051009
Do you understand that societal norms are exactly the same as organized religion. It's all made up.

>>134051309
So then class warfare is all made up? Or is it that it's moral to be spreading the revuoltion world wide?
Is it made up that socialism is sacredness to them?

>>134051309
Not an argument. Justify your claim that you are a scientific and data based ideology that believes in a plethora of theories that have literally no scientific data to back them up.
Also address this
>>134050875
>>134050224
Since you seem to believe your sexually liberal values are not subjective and in fact, factually supported by data...
What's that? You can't? Why not?
>flag
Oh right.

>>134051241
Are you a fucking idiot? Christians have spurred a lot of extreme-right wing ideologies and groups throughout history. Christianity is usually responsible for right wing extremism throughout multiple countries. I do not care what their fairy books say, as they are BS, but you are trying to tell me Christianity is actually left-wing? They've killed people for disagreeing with them such as the crusades, Spanish inquisition, etc. Christianity is a fascist religion fucking idiot.

>>134051476
>left wingers have never killed anyone for disagreeing with them

>Is this actually completely possible?
As a legal concept, yes. It probably doesn't mean what you think it means.
>Because it doesn't seem like it, people still vote for stuff influenced by religion all of the time.
As separation of church and state allows. Voters aren't the state.
>If religion and the state were completely separate what would the justification be against things like gay marriage or abortion?
>gay marriage
fuck all
>abortion
Morality does not flow inherently from religion and various moral systems account for dealing with life of different states.
>You could even argue that generalized ideological viewpoints or templates constitute religion,
You could. You couldn't argue it well, mind you.
>and those are basically the foundation of politics.
Actually the foundation of politics is the development of security as a service to be provided to a community in exchange for compensation by those who would seek to maintain it leading to communal power imbalances whereby security was recognized as more vital to the collective than any other one good or service which led to the never ending debate of how that power invested in those who provide the security should be managed and maintained. Albeit religion stuck its fat nose in not fucking long after the foundation was laid.

>>134051476
>>Read a book on the subject before you talk totally a historical facts. Communism did the same in killing those who disagreed with them like Buddhist and taoists

>>134051285
>policy of toleration
I'm not even a native speaker and i can see how badly worded it is. Go back to school. Also 2 centuries of wars of religion is 2 centuries too many. This shit almost tore Europe apart.
But i'm pretty sure you forgot shit like husite wars and shit like 4'th crusade anyway.

>>134051476
It's like you deliberately don't study history cause you're scared of it

>>134051535
You do realize I despise liberals, they are moderate and do not comprehend that by being pacifist, extremists will murder them. Also, I will not deny some leftist people have killed others but it isn't as gruesome as what extreme right wingers have murdered through systematic oppression (commonly slavery, colonialism, genocide, etc.)

>>134051585
the 4th crusade was excommunicated and became e a band of mercs. The treaty of Westphalia solved the issue. No i blame the protestants because they splited at a time when the Turks where attacking. Hustie wars and the alabganisan crusade was frist negotiated and failed war became the only answer left. Not catholic by the way

>>134051699
No one cares retard, come back with arguments and stop pretending you're not advocating a genocidal ideology of hardcore authoritarianism, or else at least fucking own it. Pussy.

>>134051575
Communism has not existed yet, look at >>134051254 Warfare between different classes is normal under socialism, as the working class has to break free from the various societal institutions that disallow them to gain control of the system.

>>134051699
Stop larping faggot. Deus gevalters are annoying enough by themselves.

>>134051590
It is like you have not bothered studying communism, a lot of you do not know what communism is.

>>134048230
No. It's also unnatural. It goes against our instincts and nature as a whole. Democracy and secularism are failures. I would rather live under sharia.

>>134051788
>communism has not existed
>>134050640
>we base our conclusions off data and science
>>134051254
>no crime/poverty can exist
Wew lad

>>134051740
>i blame protestants
>not catholic
Let me guess! Ortodox larper?

>>134051476
>Christianity is a fascist religion fucking idiot
Yes it is, and fascism is an AUTHORITARIAN concept. Read my posts, dude. Abrahamic religion is inherently AGAINST freedom, which is why I personally despise them. What does extreme right wing mean to you, exactly? Let's take an example, the KKK
>Conservative
Our rules and values are essential, they should not be broken
>Authoritarian
If you don't behave like we say you should, we will kill you
>Collectivist
Our group is all, you as an individual do not exist

Right wing extremism, if such a thing exists, would be something like saying "Freedom is everything, laws are oppression, survival of the fittest". I don't know who decided that conservativeness is a right wing concept, but quite frankly, it makes no sense at all.

>>134051858
Well apparently you're not a very good student of it (like every communist) or the material is shit, otherwise it would actually gain traction now and then.

File: 6c0c3516fee9f498ed812e2e64693f06.jpg (34KB, 373x248px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 373x248px

>>134051788
But they don't get that control that is why Mussolini and the nationalist spited form the socialist. They the socialists couldn't form social institution because they wanted to destroy them and then reuse them. This is what the fascist and former left wingers saw. If you want to see toaly social ideas in action you have to organized around right wing ideals. I suggest leaving communism those study it and go into fascism.

>>134051865
What's with facists and not understanding their ideology? Do you people just like to have a faggot on your flag?

>>134048230
The intention behind separation of church and state was to prevent clergy from being politicians and politicians from being clergy.
It was NOT intended to do away with a universal, public morality

>>134051893
Did you ignore that socialism leads to communism, and based on what we have seen, socialism results in death because of the controlling classes? It is not difficult to read.

>>134051915
To clarify, the KKK are left wing extremists. There's nothing about them or their values that is non-Christian.

>>134051980
Bandwagon fallacy.

>>134050066
"Common law", "Government", "The united states." are all inferior to the laws of our creator, nature and nature's god, as defined by the christian theologian, John Locke. Natural law and the intentions of God, are not a religion, as catholic or baptist are religions. And common law, government, united states cannot be repugnant to the laws, and intentions of Nature and nature's god. Church and state may or may not be separate, but Law and God are not separate. Thou shalt not murder, thou shalt not steal, no government or vote can change the law. We only vote who will and how to up hold the law.

>>134051895
Yes i'm orthodox, nor i'am i attacking Catholics. I'am saying a historical truth found in the book Concise histroy of the crusades by thomas f madden

>>134052153
goodnight

>>134052028
I originally thought at least most Swedes were intelligent since you are not controlled by a lot of institutions such as religion that damage your thought process, but it seems as if religious influences have manipulated your brain to correlate traditionalism, conservatism, and other extreme right wing idealogies with communism. They are not the same whatsoever, one is based in science the other is not, one is based on benefiting a few, the other is not. All authoritarian views are not leftist, as we do not agree with monarchies, nazism, and other bs, you are just making up more crap.

>>134052097
It's goverment who define "murder" or "theft".

>>134052267
It's societal influences that define subjective moral codes.

>>134052153
Fucking larpers.

>>134052267
I don't understand what you say. Our creator has endowed us with unalienable rights, life liberty and property. We did not ask government to define that for us. Rather we define the government.

>>134052021
And that's an argument.... how?
If your only ACTUAL argument is that communism global dominance = peace, there's no reason why I can't equally apply Catholic Corporatism globally and achieve the same thing.
>muh fascism
>muh we just gotta go socialist first and kill everybody that doesn't wanna be communist
>muh the killing isn't communisms fault, it's socialisms fault!
Right. Once again.
>flag
If you bring communism to the world and abolish the state, there will not be an absolute end to poverty, there will be an absolution of poverty, that is to say, the globe will be brought to its knees anytime society abandons best practices because there is no state to enforce effective social polity.

>>134052248
>All authoritarian views are not leftist
True, but all leftist views are authoritarian, by design. You can't redistribute wealth unless you have an authority with the right to do so.

You're aware that Nazism is a combination of nationalism and socialism, right? Let's see here

>Should we be authoritarian and force our values on people?
Christianity says: Yes (you will burn in hell if you disobey)
Nazism says: Yes (we will gas you if you disobey)

>Are our ideas the best ideas, set in stone, or are we open for change?
Christianity says: No change, our ideas are the best
Nazism says: No change, our ideas are the best

>Should we value the individual, or prioritize the will of the collective?
Christianity says: The individual doesn't matter, we should all be together as one and share everything
Nazism says: Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer

How do you not see these similarities? The only thing remotely good about Christianity is their sense of charity, but charity is only good if it is voluntary. Forced charity (collectivism, redistributing wealth evenly i.e. communism) is just evil.

reminder that seperation of church and state as intended by the founding fathers was the idea that the state has no power over the church, not that 'religion be kept out of government'. They were ensuring we didn't get a corrupt system where the head of state was also a religious authority and skewed the religion to further their secular ambitions.

>>134048230
Dumbasses think it means "non-atheists are excluded from politics". It means that ecclesial structure can't be part of the state.
In the Holy Roman Empire, many bishops had as much power and autonomy as other princes, and fully governed their bishphoric, levying taxes, raising armies and enforcing laws.
The same as found all over Europe. Even in England, the bishop of Durham had extensive sovereignity from Britain. During the Napoleonic Wars, the bishop of Durham sent soldiers to fight under Britain by treaty, just like it used to be in the Middle Ages. The bishop only lost his temporal position and government power in 1836, less than two centuries ago.

>>134052929
Interesting, thanks burgerboy, gives me something to actually think about.
Best comment I've read in the thread.

>>134048230
Why do atheists believe in religion? Why is a delusion in some sort of cosmic entity worse than the delusion that private property is theft?

>>134048846
America is already a theocracy friend.

>>134052248
Also, you're right about this
>manipulated your brain to correlate traditionalism, conservatism, and other extreme right wing idealogies with communism. They are not the same whatsoever

They are not the same whatsoever. Traditonalism/conservatism is on the conservative vs progressive spectrum, whereas communism is economic in nature and belongs on the communism vs capitalism spectrum. Capitalism is the freedom of every person to do as they wish with their goods, in other words, libertarianism. Communism is the iron fist of the state deciding where every single valuable thing anyone has should go, in other words, authoritarianism. You literally can't have liberty and communism at the same time, because forcing people to give away their private property is the same thing as taking away their liberty.

>>134053043
>Why is a delusion in some sort of cosmic entity worse than the delusion that private property is theft?

I agree that they're equally destructive and toxic, the difference is that it is possible to argue against "private property is theft". You can't argue against "A divine being that knows better than all of us said that this is the way it is".

>>134053096
B-b-but not if we kill everyone else and brainwash every successive generation into living their lives how we do, then we don't need a state cause it will be natural, unlike the ebin fascists and Christians who brainw-
Hey wait.

>>134053219
The interesting thing about successive generations is that the political pendulum seems to swing naturally from generation to generation. Young teenagers these days are starting to disapprove of collectivist authoritarianism (SJW, feminism, everything is racist and so on), while people in their mid-late twenties are mostly socialist, and their parents are pretty capitalist. If it goes too far in either direction, things tend to balance out. I guess it also partially has to do with human tendency to try to break free from their parents by disagreeing with them, regardless of what they say.

I would like to see less collectivism, and most of all less authoritarianism than what we've been seeing so far, but I don't know if it will happen. Luckily, collectivism isn't really something we have to kill, the progress of technology will make sure that humanity in general will be more and more well off economically in the future. As long as we prevent authority from being too oppressive, things will be alright.

>>134048230
>Is this actually completely possible? Because it doesn't seem like it, people still vote for stuff influenced by religion all of the time.
Not in my country, nigger.

>>134051547
>Morality does not flow inherently from religion and various moral systems account for dealing with life of different states.
Fuck you and your moral relativism

>>134052016
This

The number of fedoras on here who do not understand the very basics of the political and philosophical structures the Enlightenment brought is terrible.

File: IMG_0085.jpg (167KB, 1031x1382px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 1031x1382px

>>134053767
>A man's admiration for absolute government is proportionate to the contempt he feels for those around him.

>>134053200
>You can't argue against "A divine being that knows better than all of us said that this is the way it is".
Have you ever tried to debate a marxist? A person who thinks their view is perfectly logical and reasonable can be just as delusional as one who claims to act on faith. Do you honestly believe all people who claim to be logical and reasonable are actually such people?

http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/04/why-do-atheists-believe-in-religion.html

File: IMG_0620.jpg (2MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4032x3024px

>>134053767
>collectivism isn't really something we have to kill, the progress of technology will make sure that humanity in general will be more and more well off economically in the future.

>>I believe that it is easier to establish an absolute and despotic government amongst a people in which the conditions of society are equal, than amongst any other; and I think that if such a government were once established amongst such a people, it would not only oppress men, but would eventually strip each of them of several of the highest qualities of humanity.

>>134054277
>Do you honestly believe all people who claim to be logical and reasonable are actually such people?

Definitely not, most people say and do things mostly based on emotion, and then feign rationality because they know very well that no one will take him seriously if he states emotion rather than logic as the reason for what he's saying.

Most Marxists are incredibly retarded. That doesn't mean we can't refute their arguments using logic. The particular Marxist you're arguing with is probably too deeply lost in his own ideology to listen to what you're saying, but the most important part of debate is not convincing your opponent, it's convincing the spectators.

>>134054571
> That doesn't mean we can't refute their arguments using logic.
So what makes you think the people who are truly logical and reasonable outnumber the people who are not? You simply need to look at history to understand who has the numbers advantage here.

>>134054571
>>134054668
I misread your post probably, you fully understand that you're outnumbered. However, I'd say that religion isn't really as big a threat as political delusion these days. In the last 100 years, what has killed more people? Christian dogmatism or political absolutism?

>>134054510
True, collectivism is shit, enables authoritarianism and hinders innovation and progress. What I'm saying is, as technology advances, society will be more collectivist, economically. We have a very collectivist way of handling tap water for example, which we didn't in the past. But that is because it is plentiful enough to lose its value. I'm hoping the same thing will happen with bare minimum food, cover, medicine, energy and internet connection in the future. But we're still far away from that, and if a socialist/communist government is in power, they will without a doubt hinder progress enough to make sure we never reach that kind of abundance. I think the only way to make humanity less poor is by allowing the market to work at full force.

>>134054899
Collectivism vs Individualism is a false dichotomy, both can coexist in a synthesis that makes the whole greater. See a family for example. Are you an individualist when you are born? No, you must depend on ideally your mother and father. There is no benefit in atomizing people, yet at the same collectivism too can grow too large.

>>134054814
True. Communism has been the biggest threat by far, and probably still is. Christianity at a level of fundamentalism where people will kill in the name of it is more or less dead. If religion is something to worry about, Islam would be the primary thing.

And you're right, rational people are outnumbered. People have this nasty tendency of voting in the way that will benefit them rather than the way that they think is ideal, so politics by design usually result in a lot of socialism, since people just see "Oh well I see that some people are a lot richer than me so I'll vote socialist". It's extremely hard to convince the masses to vote right wing, and if they do, they'll probably end up whining about it not being the quick fix they felt they needed in their lives, and then go back to voting socialist again in the next election.

>>134055211
Very good point. Even if you are morally Individualist to the point of being mentally ill, thinking "Me getting killed is bad but other people getting killed is alright", you still benefit from a society that is at least somewhat Collectivist. It's the whole "You scratch my back, I scratch yours"-thing. I think one of the few things we should have laws against is killing other people, because it just isn't a good idea. Regardless of how selfish you are, it is a better world for you if you help make sure that other people for example don't burn down hospitals, because when you actually need a hospital, being a pure individualist is a pretty shitty thing, because you probably know nothing about treating your own illness.

>>134055250
To an irrational person, an idea is more like an infection. Those who are absolute skeptics of everything can resist with enough introspection, but a very virile idea can overtake those of weak will very easily. The job of a rational person is not just to convince other rational people of the superiority of some ideas over others, it's to enhance the virility of the ideas they endorse and vaccinate people from the ideas they oppose.

We are in a sense white blood cells fighting off waves of invaders. As you mentioned before, convincing the spectators is important. However, we shouldn't forget that as white blood cells we can't win alone and need allies if we are to fight off any strong infections that invade us.

>>134055211
Correct.
>>134054899
Actually, individualism cannot exist without collectivism.
>Patriotism is nothing more than an extension of individual egoism.
Furthermore,
>What is often called family pride is often founded on the illusion of self love. A man wishes to perpetuate and immortalize himself
Relevant to ethnic nationalism.
You see, collectivism is a product of individualism, because individuals will always collectivize in order to serve their own self interests, since individuals are weak and collectives are strong, and as I say that, ironically:
>the law of association in politics is not shared interests, but shared grievances
You cannot kill collectives without killing their grievances, and the slow death of an ethnic group will only ever perpetualize progressively increasing collectivization of that ethnic group, especially as their influence and control over their own destinies is proportionately decreasing along with their demographic strength in comparison to the "other".

You cannot have individualism without collectivism, and you cannot preserve individualism in the face of collective despotism, without preserving the balance of grievances, and as we all know, ethnic/cultural diversity only creates more sincere grievances, the more groups you add to the mix
Therefore it logically follows that not only can you not have individualism without collectivism developing naturally, you cannot preserve individualism without collectivism.

>>134052015
It's just a shitposting flag.

>>134056722
That's...actually the first time I've ever heard a convincing explanation of why one should be a white supremacist, I think.

I've always thought of it as "Collectivism but excluding some people who are not like us", but it makes a lot more sense as an extension of the family, which in itself is an extension of the self.

And I mean, I do get the argument about preserving the ethnicity because of how large the gap is between white average IQ compared to black or middle eastern average IQ.

The thing is, if I were interested in political tribalism, I would probably identify more with intelligent people than with white people. I'm more interested in creating a nation of white, asian and jewish (yes, I said it) people with superior intelligence, than creating a nation of only white people.

I don't hate the ethnicity that most Muslims happen to have, but I do hate Islam and its irrational, anti-secular doctrine. If you show me a person that is ethnically identical to most Muslims who bears a hatred for dogmatic religion and is passionate about science and rationality, I'll take him over a white christian redneck any day. And I do know some people who are like that, it happens every once in a blue moon that some arab kid growing up in a place like Sweden listens to his white classmates and adopts a more healthy mindset. Unfortunately, as mentioned here >>134056179 some ideas are really potent when it comes to spreading to masses of people, and Islam is one of the most extreme cases I've ever seen. I mean, 1.5 billion people, holy shit...

File: jana-duggar-wedding-day-photo.jpg (44KB, 520x357px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 520x357px

>>134057443
God wants you to love everyone.

Don't let someone's skin color stop you from helping them and doing good deeds.

A righteous man can come from any nation.

Jesus loves you!

>>134057443
In regards to collectivism, one can revolutionize his perception of a collective by recognizing...
>What is often called family pride is often founded on the illusion of self love. A man wishes to perpetuate and immortalize himself
... one can begin to slowly see a "collective identity" form that is not equal to the individual identities of it's members, but is relational to them. Also, because...
>the law of association in politics is not shared interests, but shared grievances
... individual interests also do not equate to collective interests. The collective has its own identity, interests, and grievances, mutually exclusive of those of the individuals, and we have chosen to absolutely disregard the rights of collectives in the same respect as that of individuals. We either deny the collective any rights whatsoever, or we assign it rights based on the severity of it's grievances.
Indeed, it is a whole other can of worms to try and debate what rights an individual and a collective should have, since the rights of one violate those of the other, however a global polity is NOT the solution because it is the ultimate form of oppression - oppression both the individuals, AND the collectives.
So what do?
Democracy (radical individualism) is oppressive of collectives and sees them as tyrannical in any form, hence our tendency to install it in the Middle East.
The Fourth Political Theory by Aleksandr Dugin advocates a worldview with collectives of all kinds inhabiting it, collectives based on IQ supremacy as you suggest, collectives based on ethnicity, collectives based on religion or culture, or even collectives based on humble pursuit of knowledge and scientific advancement. Nationstates with their own policies designed to serve their own collective efforts, so that those within can enjoy the comfort of their implicit collectives, and express themselves individually without violating the rights of their collective.

>>134057443
So if we decide then that collectives deserve a right to exist, and have freedom, there is another philosophical nuance to that. Why.
Why does this collective want freedom?
There are two different categories of freedom.
Freedom from.
Freedom to.
The nazis sought freedom FROM oppression of the Jews, rather than seeking freedom TO determine their own future.
The difference is in what this philosophical axiom produces. Hatred.
When you seek freedom FROM something, it is petty, and it produces a dangerous uncontrollable hatred for that which you seek freedom from.
When you seek freedom TO DO something, it is less about smashing what is oppressing you, and more about lifting it off, and declaring independence from it.
The American revolution against the British was a war for freedom TO embrace liberty and determine America's own future, and as a result they did not turn Britain into a pile of ashes and 6 gorillion memes.
These are extremely different examples, but the point is there. And it is also precisely why the meme about 88 holding back 14 is true. Because 14 seeks freedom for whites to determine their own future, 88 seeks freedom from the Jews.

>>134057443

You can't make that argumen like
>If you show me a person that is ethnically identical to most Muslims who bears a hatred for dogmatic religion and is passionate about science and rationality, I'll take him over a white christian redneck any day.

That's delusional. Especially when you build that argument around religious matters. It's literally the fedora version of a secularist argument for civic nationalism. In addition to that, you need supposedly "dumb" people. Why ? They're doing what you won't do, because you can't have a nation or city or covenant or whatever structure you want to live in that consists of a bunch of geniuses. These are not who run societies. Societies are run by people slaving away all day, keeping the city clean, removing the trash, caring for pests etc. pp.

Also, you have the genetic responsibility to bringing forth your people - if not in a national scale then definitely on a communal scale. That doesn't mean you should shit on others because of nonsense reasons like skin color or religion. But it means that you should do all you are willing and able to do to increase your potential as well as that of the other guys. Maybe especially those of """dumb""" people, because they have no clue for a reason.

>>134057443
I could probably keep going on this, but I don't have time anymore, I'm already neglecting my wagecucking. Good luck, and I suggest picking up some /pol/ approved literature, to expand your worldview some more and refine your philosophies.
Democracy in America by Alexis De Tocqueville
And
The Fourth Political Theory by Aleksandr Dugin
Are what I've read, and are both great books for the libertarian and the collectivist within you, respectively.

>>134059093

Honestly, that's pure semantics. You can apply your interpretation of the American Revolution to Nazi Germany as well.
This just opens to moral relativism. On the other hand I well agree with the 88 thing. It's anyway 99.9% of neonazi thugs - which behave like literal nogs - that cling to it anyway. In the real world, that is, not on the internetz of satire.

>>134059593
It isn't the best example I agree, because that isn't a fair way to describe the Nazi Germany event by any means, but I can't think of a better historical example off the top of my head.
Indeed the 14 "to" and 88 "from" is accurate, as it is the very obvious difference between white nationalism, and white supremacy.

>>134059973
One of them definitely sounds like a more peaceful way of handling and thinking about things, but it seems hard to argue that white nationalism isn't white supremacy. I mean, what reasons can there be to care so much about not wanting to mix the white race with others, other than thinking that it is inherently superior somehow?

>>134060475
Because genetic distance of parents directly correlates with increased rates of autism, which you can find by searching the web for, it's not incredibly well researched but others have done the work and collected the research in a couple places.
Mulattos have the highest rates of autism of any group, and even among Anglo/Nordic (inter-white-mixing) there is slight increases.
It takes very little time whatsoever to find reports that mental health services are "failing" mixed race children (they're actually just more problematic).
The same is observed in dogs, mixed breed dogs develop more antisocial behaviours on average than purebreds.

As well, genetics are not simple and many genetic traits are formed by combinations of genes interacting called "epistatic" gene combinations, which get broken up by mixing.

Also, blood transfusions, and bone marrow/organ transplants for mixed race individuals are impossible to receive from either of their own parents, and sometimes even their own siblings, you will actually find articles advocating for more race mixing purely because they need more organs and blood and bone marrow for the mulatto children who don't have any valid donors available.

That's just off the top of my head, I think there's a couple other reasons. Social issues getting along with either ethnic group they stem from, and fewer dating prospects as well.

>>134060475

Well, nationalism is: We want to be among our own kind and only them. That is not packed with supremacism because it does not degrade other subspecies/ethnicities in first place. It can be a choice out of convenience, or because "it was always like that" or from observations a la "we built an empire while [for example] africans did not". But it's interpreted as such. Supremacism on the contrary means feeling inherent superiority for some traits that are believed to be inherited by particular subspecies.

Mixing of subspecies is a thing for itself, because there's a shitton of false positives and made up science about that. I'm not a biologist, so I can't judge. But an ACTUAL reason, I could imagine, might be the very fact that you want your kids to look similar to you and your family. Or maybe it's also possible to bring forth genetic deseases in the offspring which aren't common to [specific region/nation] ? I don't know, I never thought about it to be honest.

But biology as well as the distinction between white nationalism/supremacism are s vague that it is absolutely possible for anyone to argue in anyway he or she deems suitable to further their points. So the question is much less, should the progressives shit on white supremacists - and for white supremacists to shit progressives - but rather how much of a rate of force-fed multiculturalism benefits a society - if at all.

>>134061176
There are no objective benefits to cultural diversity in communities observed to date, only flaws.
There's a paper floating about by a liberal sand person who had his worldview shook when he discovered this accidentally.
Diverse communities go outside less, volunteer less, interact with neighbours less, lower trust communities in general, which makes it easier for criminal elements to cultivate outside, and the groups have tendencies to self segregate further compartmentalizing the society and the criminal elements.
The only objective benefit of it he found was that engineering teams tend to come up with better solutions to problems because the diversity of approaches that the members take when looking at a problem, influenced by their backgrounds.

>>134061176
I can understand wanting your kids to look like you, both for your sake and for theirs. I can also understand certain traits (whites or asians wanting to preserve high IQ, blacks wanting to preserve tallness, penis size) and such things.

I'm not a fan of "It was always like that" without a rational argument for it though. Reminds me of the monkeys getting sprayed when attempting to climb a ladder scientific experiment. I think being conservative is reasonable if you have a good reason to conserve the thing you want to conserve, but being conservative just for the sake of it seems irrational.

>>134061176

That is to say: Biology reasons are pretty much convincing, but as always, scientific facts can be made up. Once some non-peer-reviewed paper states something to further a narrative, the adherents of that narrative will cling to it and regurgitate it to the point it is accepted as proven fact.

Good example is the study from Margaret Mead of several tribes of New Guinea - especially the Arapesh. Basic rundown: Tribe seems to be passive, run by women, men are basically grown kids and so on. Now comes the fun part: This study of her - which was famously contradicted by her own husband as well as other anthropologists, as well as Mead proven to have lied and falsified facts - didn't mention that the tribe has just been at war and lost, therefor men losing sense of reality and all that shit.
Now the fun fact: This study, although proven wrong numerous times, was the virtual basis of modern radical feminism.

>>134061176
It's also been observed that ethnically homogenous communities in the USA (all white) are more likely to *locally* support socialist economic policies than ethnically diverse ones (black/white), theoretically because it is more natural to empathize with the poor when they are just like you, while it is easier to differentiate the poor (blacks) as an "other" whose problems are more of a cause of their own community issues, and thus have less empathy.

>>134061803
Fucking hilarious. Gotta love people that lack spatial IQ required to detect nuance.

>>134061803
Pretty much every season of "Survivor" contradicts it.

File: IMG_0656.png (304KB, 678x678px) Image search: [Google]

304KB, 678x678px

>>134061714
>I cannot help fearing that men may reach a point where they look on every new theory as a danger, every innovation as a toilsome trouble, every social advance as a first step toward revolution, and that they may absolutely refuse to move at all.
More Tocqueville

>>134061659
>>134061714
>>134061913
>>134062099

Yeah absolutely. The problem is that ethnically centristic nations - or I wouldn't even go that far and rather say covenants - are somehow made something inherently bad, provided it is successful. Not to blame it on da joos or anything - because it's the financial system in first place. I mean you don't see people advocating for placing people of european or asian descent in gang-ridden afro-american hoods, always the other way around. Which is ... suspicious at best, to put it nicely.

>>134061714

Yeah, I certainly agree. If people want that, it's absolutely fine. But I honestly despise people that are like "MANG GAZ DE JOOS BCUZ HEETLAR DID EET !!!!". That's like the most pathetic argument you can bring forth in
>current year
because there's a whole world of wisdom, but you (as in: people acting like that) chose the literal thug narrative.

>>134062770
I personally quite like the jews, I've noticed that mentioning that on this board is a great way to get an angry mob after you.

I mean, I obviously don't like the religion, just like I don't like Christianity or Islam, but the ones who are secular seem to be pretty capable people. Whether that is cultural or biological, I don't know. I'm going to go ahead and guess largely cultural, considering how the rest of the people that originate from the middle east behave.

>>134062770
Yes. I sympathize greatly with ethnocentrism, but I am at odds with actual racism.
I am willing to compromise ethnocentrism only for strong cultural - Christian centrism.
One or the other is fine by me. Christian centrism is the most... politically safe move.

>>134063051
I think it's cultural as well, but much more influential than other cultures.

>>134048230

Probably only if you were living in a completely atheist society. That said, separation of church and state is more specifically aboht how the state wont legislate religion and vice versa.

In practice that should mean things like no government money would be spent on religious buildings and at the same time genuine religious organisations should not expected to be taxed (no taxation without representation) since they would not be allowed to lobby the government as a religious organisation.

>>134063304
>no government money would be spent on religious buildings

Yes please. In Sweden, you pay 31-56% (depending on how much you earn) of your income in taxes. I've always been opposed to it going to stupid shit, but let's just say that the Mosques didn't make things better.

>>134063051
>>134063055

Exploring why especially successful "white" neighborhoods are being diluted is a whole topic of it's own and I've got now time for it
To say, I'm orthodox Christian. I don't despise jews either, nor atheists or anyone. I'm doing my thing and I couldn't care less about people that aren't bothering me or my (extended) family. But with increasing secularism, people were lead further astray from God - which is from a non-Christian perspective nothing bad in first place, but with increasing secularism, the degeneracy increased. By that I'm not even particularly talking about buttsex and sausage fights. More the social radicalism that arose within the last 100 years, if you know what I mean. Radical feminism, first gay then trans then general lgtb then .. whatever is to come (i suspect pedos being normalized). But not only the arise of those things/policies in a timely digestible manner, be the enforcement of those via radical narratives and actions.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating for a theocracy. But it wouldn't be inherently bad if we (as Western nations - and I include Eastern Europe) would orient ourselves a bit more along religious conservatism - without transforming into a nanny state. Because if there are limits, then you can safely explore stuff. But contrary to that, what we have now is a trans epidemic, where MOSTLY mtf surgeries are done, of which like 70% suicide after. We have faggots, not only gays but faggots, parading naked on the street, parading naked children with them, demanding special rights and all that. Not to mention the intake of radical savages with an ideology worse that Hitler-NatSoc, i.e. muslims.

A progressive might misunderstand that as inherent hate, but it's not. It's a legitimate concern, because we, as Western societies, had no chance of developing "softly". We are force-fed with all this within the last like 20 years (where it all became "big" so to speak), and we don't let people adapt sufficienty

>>134063884

That is to say: I can see the benefit of ethnocentralism, but I don't think it's doable anymore. Something like you (>>134063055) said above, aka "christian centrism" might be an answer, if we take into account that we still should remain European.

Because I often see - also within my church - people arguing about how it's fine when you're accepting muslims, as long as they're good people. I agree but only to a certain extend, because especially islam is an ideology that is expansive. Once there are enough muslims, shit's going down pretty likely. See Lebanon with 10-something years of brutal civil war of muslims against christians. Or see Sweden, France, Germany (though it's not AS BAD yet .. we already have our nogo sharia police zones) and so on.

>>134063884
That pretty much hits the nail on the head with how I feel. I would like to see more respect of whites since this is our only homelands, and we need long term plans, can't just slowly go extinct to civic nationalism, but that doesn't have to take form of radical ethno nationalism.
Whites need to put down their fedoras and embrace Christ, and declare our nations as Christian nations and resist Islamic influence. The flow of Islam will stop, and the Muslims here will even slowly convert. It's how Christianity was always meant to win its fights.
Too many edgy kids, would rather compromise the integrity and cultural security of our people because Jesus is a Jew or God is "imaginary"

>>134064150
More beautiful Tocqueville quotes:
>I am unaware of his plans but I shall never stop believing in them because I cannot fathom them and I prefer to mistrust my own intellectual capacities than his justice.

>>134064580

Exactly.