Why is the UK so fucked?

Well, that not a good idea, as history has shown that jews simply cannot be trusted. It will just be a postponement of what they still want to do, which is enslave us all.
The problem must be handled at the source, and the jews must be removed from this plane

You are right! It was protestants that first allowed birth control! It was protestants that first allowed abortion and euthanasia and gay marriage.

Oh well, protestants started the refugees welcome as well and they are reaping what they sowed.

Attached: child slave auction.jpg (458x301, 24K)

Listen I'm not going to pretent I'm an expert in religious history, because I'm not. That said, I'm sure that religion, Christianity to be specific, played it's part in the shaping of our modern culture in the west, whether via education or shaping our laws. I know it had a hand in it. And yes, it did a good job. Nobody is denying that. And I'mn all for religious freedom, so long as we have separation of church and state. And I completely agree that we can have Chritianity and Islam coexist. And I'd rather vote for Christianity if I had to pick. At least chritianity grew the fuck up.

All I'm saying is, ultimately, religion is just a fantasy anyways. And I truly believe that given enough peaceful time alone (i.e. without incidents or major uprisings. i.e. if Europe was white and expelled everyone else), most people would gradually let religion go and likely adopt it's good teachings into their culture regardless, just you know, dropping the fantasy.

The issue is, we have this BS mixed idelogy society which prevents us from sucessfully reaching such a stage.

Correction: CAN'T have Christianity and Islam coexit. They can't.

After the Protestant Revolt, every nation that went Protestant quickly were the first that went secular.
The Catholic Church held firm until the late 1950's until the Council where the ideals of the French Revolution were enshrined in a Council. The sexual revolution hit the West at the exact same time.
Protestants accepted the neo-pagan practice of contraception in 1930, and the rest by 1940. Catholics were holding out. David Rockefeller even requested to write the "birth control encyclical" for Pope Paul VI--as he wanted Catholics to get involved in birth control because WASP numbers were drastically declining and Catholic demographics were steadily climbing.
Paul VI turned him down.
By the late 1960's, the sexual revolution was in full-swing and dissenting Catholic clergymen (like the Land O'Lakes Statement and the Canadian Bishops) promoted contraception (and then abortion). Most notoriously, Notre Dame.
The modernist revolutionaries in the Church launched a successful coup. Traditional clergymen are silenced and demonized in the media, Francis shuts down orthodox Catholic religious orders, and groups like the SPLC put us up on their hate-map if you don't tow the Second Vatican Council line.
The revolution first hit the Protestant world, and now it has entered the Catholic world.

The only way back is returning to Christendom: that is, Catholic monarchy.

Jews are not a monolithic group. Zionism is simply nationalism for Judaism, and that is like 50% of Jews worldwide, and only 20% of Jews in the diaspora.

You know what to do.

Attached: 1552836724780.jpg (980x742, 133K)

Weren't Rothschilds bragging about controlling you lads since 1800s?

probbles. america was the new frontier and our hope but they're gay now too. possibly always were.

Just kill all the Jew cunts and Muslim cunts Brandon style lad
UK police will probably fail to stop a mass shooter anyway

>And I'mn all for religious freedom, so long as we have separation of church and state.
Then you'll get Islam.
You cannot have a system that promotes "religious freedom" and not be overtaken by Islam. Why? Because "religious freedom" is State religious indifferentism and Islam is not just a religion but a political order.
You cannot allow the liberty of all religions and expect to curb the negative effects of those religions that are hostile to the moral and societal order.

"Religious freedom" is a masonic farce which drives the populace to atheism via indifferentism. A "religiously indifferent" State is one that is unable to enshrine an absolute truth--instead rejects all notions of absolute truth in favor of relativism and ultimately, the religion of the State. A civic religion.

What is the language of "white"?
What is the root of the word "culture"? Culture comes from the Latin cultus, meaning common religious devotion of a people.
The problem with a Europe devoid of its uniting religious roots leaves only a incomprehensible Darwinistic Whig racial ideology.
If you want to be a huwhite monkey, then fight for Darwinism, kiddo.

Attached: jefferson-a-philosophic-cock.jpg (1754x2283, 840K)

>could just be rational
yeah, look how well that’s been working out for the west.

hahah i love these threads

well what are the bobbies gonna use, their weapons grade standard issue dildo?

First of all, let's get one thing straight. Islam is NOT just a religion. It's an ideology, like capitalism or communism.

That said, it really woudln't fully qualify under religious freedom. As religious freedome would dictate, you are free to believe whatever the fuck you want and let others do the same, however Islam actively tries to supress other religious beliefs and enforce LAW as it is seen fit within Islam. That, is the exact opposite of separation of church and state and it disqualifies it from being treated as just a religion. It is not. It is an ideology. So my point stands. Expelling Islam out of Europe would not be against religious freedom, since Islam is not just a religion. Instead it would be parallel to the toppling of the Berlin wall and communism. As it is an ideology first and foremost.

And again user, I see you're very heated about Christianity. Whatever dude, I don't mind that, it's a peaceful religion now a days. It used to be just as crazed once, so don;t pretend it wasn't, *cough* burning "witches" and scientists *cough*, But it's cool now. So whatever. We don't NEED it to survive, but it won't hurt if it stays in it's place. Otheriwse it becomes no different than Islam.

Seen some photos of MP5 wielding ones from recently. So I guess not everyone is armed with a dildo.

Darwinism is fucking dank.

We haven't been reational though have we, if we had been rational we would have never accepted the mass migration of Islam into our lands. I'm speaking of course of mostly Europe. Though I hear America has a immigration problem too.

Agreed, Anglos are scum.

>we couldn instead just be, you know, rational
everybody believes they're rational. Schizophrenic people believe they're right and the world is wrong because they don't have anything except what they remember and what their senses tell them.
History is a bunch of wars and rape, and the reason why is because it's human nature. Civilization cannot survive moral decay. The no-fault divorce is moral decay. birth control and abortion is moral decay. Basically, everything that feminists have convinced the Western world's governments to enact is moral decay. Feminists have decided that families are unimportant. Women don't need men, they just need government.
If the government that enables, protects, and encourages women's sexual liberation were to ever fail, women would be completely unprotected. When civilization collapses, the fairy tales about how women select only alpha males with the best genes will evaporate. The truth is that human reproduction is maximized when women are beaten and gang-raped by tribes of murderous men, and this is why women evolved to be the weaker sex. Pre-columbian women didn't select Spanish conquistadors because they had great genes, nor did Italian women select the Moors. What women find attractive is irrelevant in nature, and it has been this way throughout virtually all of recorded human history.
Western women have traded-in a community of men willing to defend them with their lives in exchange for a government run by politicians only interested in their vote; a government that, at the behest of women, has turned most of its men into a disposible class; a government for which few men have any motivation to defend. Meanwhile, women are doubling down, marching around in pussy hats, and calling it progress.

>First of all, let's get one thing straight. Islam is NOT just a religion. It's an ideology, like capitalism or communism.
That's what I said.
>Islam is not just a religion but a political order
A religiously indifferent State is nothing more than a Pantheon where every god is stood shoulder to shoulder. Any truth that is taught is shunned by that State as it is ideologically primed to be indifferent.
America was the first secular, godless State in recorded human history. As such, its classical liberal tenets are unequipped to fight the negative effects and the encroachment of Islam. We cannot ban Islam without risking banning of all religions. It's as simple as that.

The West can only be secured under a Christian State; a State that is joined to the Church, just as our ancestors were for over 1,500 years.
>1,500+ years of Christendom: Western civilization
>200 or so years of secularism: children confused as to which bathroom to use
Pick one.
Because if you pick the secular State and religious freedom, you get the latter.

>What is the language of "white"?
>What is the root of the word "culture"? Culture comes from the Latin cultus, meaning common religious devotion of a people.

To be fair, I never actually knew that definition, but let's face thats not the definition we mean when we say culture these days. Much like gay no longer means happy. And fag is a ciggarette in the UK. Point being, by culture, I mean shared beliefs and traditions, though these can be of a religious nature, I don't believe they have to be. For example, most of Europe has slightly differing cultures, slightly different versions of christianity, different foods (mostly based on geographics location), different drinks, again based on locaiton, but at the core of it, most European coutnries sahre the same values and belief systems, with small differences that fade into obscurity when it comes to getting drunk together. It has nothing to do with religion. It was and can be a part of it, but we share the same values regardless. Well, most of us in Europe anyways.

>deal with the jews
What do you think got us into this mess? And by us I mean Europe broadly, not just the UK. If we end up like the Almohad Caliphate then they reap what they sow.

Attached: bf235928c50646ce1e5e60796657ece7c7eeee1d6c21218d1e2e960235662840.jpg (881x1024, 157K)

I mean, I agree with most of what you're saying here. I do. I'm not saying we should have such a state though. I also don't like this BS, weak, overly sensitive society where every sort of imaginable degeneracy is accepted. I'm just saying that religion, whislt effective against this, isn;t the ONLY way to go about it.

>let's face thats not the definition we mean when we say culture these days
>shared beliefs and traditions
So LGBTXYZ, trannies, traps, birth control, abortion, apple pie, baseball, fütbol, sodomite unions, and recreational drugs now become your traditions.
You can thank the wonderful, secular, religiously indifferent State.

Each locale has its own local culture, but culture as a whole is united through common religious devotion. When Europe was a bunch of pagan huwhite tribes running around the woods hunting pigs, there was no uniting factor.
They were all white! A huwhite utopia! ... and yet there was no unity. Because there was no unifying religious belief and no unifying culture. "White" isn't enough. It is important, but it isn't enough.
There's a reason why North and parts of Central Africa, Mediterranean kingdoms, and Western Europe were able to be united. Common religion. But they stayed separate and respected each individual local culture.
It wasn't the Borg.

Religious freedom sucks.
The chikom selectivly culls cults that disrupt their idea of harmony. It seems to work.
Its kinda what the early church did with heretic sects to establish a canon.
Christianity is nice but unfortunately cant deal with tolerating horror such as refugee plight and eugenics with the latter making society unfit in the coming yields on that field which will undoubtly be happening in east asia first.
This is why Islam wont win either.

Those old Jewish, feminist harpies are spot-on accurate when they say religion is a smoke screen to make it so that women have no voice in the rule of law.
I don't think you can come up with a "rational" way of justifying disenfranchising women without resorting to a bunch of religious hocus-pocus, at least not in a way women will accept.
My rational justification is that only men are tribal, so only men should rule the tribe. When a tribe goes to war with another tribe, the men in one tribe kills all the men in the other tribe, and the women will spread their legs for the invaders as they always do. Women have no skin in the game.
I think this is completely rational. A lot of other people don't.

>So LGBTXYZ, trannies, traps, birth control, abortion, apple pie, baseball, fütbol, sodomite unions, and recreational drugs now become your traditions.
No. See previous post.

You seem to be bend on having some kind of religious state. So let's just say we're never going to agree on that and leave it at that. Which is sad, because clearly we share the same value system. Except you're obsessed with religion. Sad times.

And one last time. I get it, religion can be a unifying force. Yes. You're right. But it's the wrong kind of unifying force. *cough* Islam *cough*.

You know what. Do you guys just want a fucking Crusade? Cause this is how you get a crusade? Let's just do that and call it a day.

Because at the end of the day, much like a dick, I don't mind if you have your special religion, so long as you don't shove it down my through and let me be.

throat*

>Its kinda what the early church did with heretic sects to establish a canon.
The first semblance of a "religious freedom" that we have today can be compared to the Roman emperor Julian the Apostate's system.
He liberalized all heretical Christian sects in the hope that it would snuff out the Church with divisions.
It's a very good plan and heresy proliferated greatly during his day.
It serves the interest of the security and stability of the State to suppress rival sects and religions. A rival sect can upset the balance of the kingdom ending in civil war.
On the other hand, the modern country that allows the proliferation of all religions pits each religion against one another so that the oligarchs are able to always stay in power with the constant problem of needing to appease each group. It doesn't work for the common man.
>Except you're obsessed with religion.
As an ex-pagan and ex-protestant that is aware of history, yes. It is the only way.
You would rather the American experiment over Christendom?
Constantly being pinballed between the Jewish monetary systems, Capitalism (State-sponsored usury) and its reaction Socialism/Communism (State-sponsored theft)?

I'm looking forward to watching it collapse. The Church is a divine institution and will pick up civilization, once again, as she has done over and over.

Attached: belloc-2.jpg (980x553, 89K)

>Because at the end of the day, much like a dick, I don't mind if you have your special religion, so long as you don't shove it down my through and let me be.
You can be a secular in a Catholic State.
You can be a Protestant in a Catholic State.
You just can't behave like a Jew and subvert the moral and natural order with your sixteenth century religion or your modern religion of Voltaire.

Attached: DMUjvZTUQAAKk1J.jpg (500x644, 92K)

Look at this faggot trying to predict modern happenings on 500 year ago minor thing :D kys retard

We have pretty relaxed freedom of speech, I mean I can call May a money grabbing cunt that would probably climb in bed with ISIS if it kept her in power and I wint get v& for it

this picture is absolutely revolting.. it just embodies the west..

Hey Fin. Do you believe liberalism manifests itself ex nihilo?
Theological liberalism in the Protestant revolt begat philosophical liberalism in the Endarkenment which begat sociological liberalism in the overthrow of altar and throne--the French Revolution, the classical liberals who emancipated the Jew (Napoleon), which begat capitalism and communism, the latter of which begat cultural Marxism.
Even Gramsci, the commie piece of shit knew this. How do you not?
Liberalism is a continuity. It does not drop out of the sky in time, it stands on the shoulders of prior revolutions.
It never moves backward, it only progresses further down and left.

Attached: gramsci-praxis-over-doctrine-captioned.jpg (800x408, 143K)

The churchs future lies in the wombs of africa. While this new flock will undoubtly revitalise the church and its teachings, it will at best make africa more western as aa sucessor, but not safe the people of the west who arent needed for the faith to survive.

laws that impede and restrict freedoms have been slowly creeping in over the years. something else that has been creeping in is the police overreach in social media and general complaints of the hate speech variety. there are so many laws now that the police can probably find something that will stick, or otherwise they are infringing on your human right to free expression and not to be harassed by the pigs. there is something rotten in the system

Noice shitpost retard. Stop lumping up liberalism with everything you don't like. You think companies should be free to do business? That's liberalism in the strict and original sense.

I do not think that's the case.
Look at Uganda. Just recently liberalized sodomite unions. Uganda is known for the Ugandan martyrs. A pagan sodomite king tried to sodomize young Catholic boys and they went to their death refusing to do so. That was the norm in Uganda until last year.
The African Church is definitely growing, but I still believe the restoration of Christianity in the West will come after chastisement. It's been foretold and spoken about for two hundred years.

Fellas. My issue with religion isn't one against upholding (some of) its morals. And I say some because no religion got its morals perfect yet.

My issue is that all religions are very cult like and sooner or later, much like in Islam, if we let religion rule, all sorts of chaos and immorality ensues.

Again, let's not forget that Christianity is no saint either. It had no issues stoning, burning, and doing all sorts of immoral acts against otherwise innocent people, much like Islam does today. This is why I have an issue with your proposals. I don't trust any religion to rule over people.

Let's take drugs for example. Would you outlaw alcohol? coffee? What about weed, thats a hot topic. The problem is religion would cross a line before ALL of the aforementioned drugs. And i'll agree that A LOT of drugs are harmful and should be outlawed. Cocaine, heroin, meth, etc. But historically speaking, no relgion can draw that line in the right place.

Gay people? I think theyre fine, so long as they keep it to themselves. Trans people, I don't think they're fine. They need help. We can not suddenlt be cats or 98. It's a fine line, and my issue is, I don't think any religion is equipped to handle it correctly.

Laissez faire is nothing but Jewry--profit at the expense of everything and anything. Morality does not play a part.
If you want classical liberal economics, you already have it.
If the economy is your main concern, you're already a communist and don't even know it.

Liberalism is a continuity. It moves in history through stages.

Go question the Holocaust openly via a megaphonme in front of parliament and if you don't get arrested, I'll concede that we have "pretty relaxed freedom of speech".

Of course they did X to appease the west and get their sweet ngo money. The average believer on the ground there wont accept it.
Its the sheer demographic might that will most liekely reshift the historic center of the church.
We already import african priests as we lack our own, once they move up the ranks of bishops and manage to be represented according to their flock, it will be a once western institution with new heirs to interpret its message.
Mayb another latin america in place of europe but faithful at last is an acceptable outcome to you.
Im too much of a materialist to share that notion.

So basically if religion would adhere to your relativistic notions of what is right and wrong, then it would be alright.
But since Christianity deals in absolutes, that discourages certain behaviors and is scary.

You're right at home with the secular system of relative non-values values.

No. It's not about religion adhering to my notions of what is right and wrong at all. That's not what I'm saying.

I don't care if religion disagrees with my notions so long as it doesn't IMPOSE it's notions on me WITHOUT being open to discussion. Like you said, and thank you for saying it like that. Religions deal in absolutes. And that's just tyrannical really.

An example. Religion says gay's should be allowed. I say, ehhhh, whatever, let them be. Now, if that religion were to say, "well let's have a civil discussion about this and figure out what actually morally right here", then hey man, power to . But if it instead says, "No. Gay is wrong. Period. We know all there is to know, by the power of ". Well, that's delusional bullshit and it doesn't belong in any kind of ruling system.

Secularism doesn't have it all right.
Religion doesn't have it all right.
They all have their merits. We need to be rational people.

Nobody advocated lawlessness.

>Of course they did X to appease the west and get their sweet ngo money. The average believer on the ground there wont accept it.
Yeah, you're probably right. The Obama admin required signing on to promoting "gay rights" and feminism in order to receive aid according to Nigerian ambassador. They refused.
As a mutt I happen to like my Western European tradition. I have five younglings, and I want my grandchildren to look like me.
But unfortunately Anglos fucked their own virility by introducing contraception, abortion, and now outright sodomy. There's no turning back the tide.
The economic system barely allows for the growth of the family.
Something's gotta give.
America is dead in the water. We will end up the largest welfare state on earth.
There is no solidarity between the thousands of Protestant sects, and the hierarchy of the Catholic Church in America is in bed with the Federal Government for shekels because almost the entire Catholic demographic in the US don't go to mass and don't give a shit about the continuity of the faith. So the corrupt Bishops go to the State.
Kind of like what your Cardinal Marx and Company does.

Oh look pedo-scum Catholic cucks praising Islam and blaming their opposing Christian sects for all problem.

Attached: 33a76544eb288ff7ffc5ecfbcf20d884a29f2227_00.jpg (512x314, 37K)

What are you talking about? Our entire rational tradition is based upon Christian morality.
Homosexuality is intrinsically wrong simply because it is the abuse of the procreative faculty, this very same philosophical principle is applied to contraception, making sterile hetero sex also a sodomite behavior.
It's pretty simple. Our sexual faculty exists for procreation. Outside of this biological framework, you get problems. Even the pagan Greek philosophers knew this. It's not a new concept, nor is it primarily a Christian concept.

That's called applying the human faculty of reason.

After millennia of infighting and two world wars your supply of good men is low.

>Do you think it’s possible to do a deal with the jews to get them to stop?
lol no. don't be naive. The simple fact that their religion was founded and some time later written down by the people who despised Christ should tell you that.

Christianity was founded by jews who were rejecting Near East culture for Western, Greek culture. The culture of the jews are the ones that refused to change and remained in their inferior Near East culture; therefore, the jews are closer in culture to muslims then they are to Christians. Morality for the West is based on the individual's reputation and personal choice. ie: Typically, it is wrong for you to lie regardless of context. For Near East ethics, morality is totally dependent on who you are related to. ie: Who you are lying to and your genetic relation to them determines if it is wrong to lie to them or not.

If you are White and Christian, you are an existential threat for the jew, their way of thinking, and their political power and even more so than you are a threat to a Muslim. Muslims will eventually over run by their numbers. Jews don't have this ability because they are an ethno-religion. They will always have fewer numbers. This means they always wield their power from a standpoint of weakness: they will never have the numbers to maintain the political power that they have.

Yes a lot of our morals in the west come from Christianity. But not all of those moral decisions were right. And look I'm willing to agree that maybe I'm the wrong one about gay people in this case for example.

But the point I'm trying to make here, isn't about whether it's right or wrong to be gay. My point is that I'm open to debate that moral point. Your religion and by extension, you, are not open to that.

And that's the issue I have with your proposed system. If you're morals are not even open to discussion, and you only deal with absolutes, (whther you're right about them or not, it doesn't matter), the fact that you won't even debate the issue makes your religion no different than Islam.

Look, I don't hate homosexuals. My mother is a practicing homosexual. I still love her--she comes over for holidays, etc. She isn't blind to her behavior.
The point is, it's an intrinsic contradiction to the natural law and a mental and/or personality disorder.
No, I'm not open to behaviors that are against the natural order.
Your eyes are to see, your ears to hear, your tongue to aid in speech and taste, your fingers to grasp, and your sexual organs in their sexual faculty are for procreation.

What in the hell is difficult to understand here?
It's as if people get confused as to the purpose of body parts when it is below the belt.
Sorry bud, but that isn't called "using reason," that's called either subordinating the truth to your own disordered passions or just being dumb.

I agree with you on the senses. Again, you're focusing too much on one moral issue. And no it's not difficult to understand. I get where you're coming from. To a straight person, homosexuality is unnatural. I get that. I see what you see man. That's not the issue. The issue is, homosexual people are people too. And yes it's unnatural. Like you say, it doesn't make sense for man to sleep with man and woman with woman since they can never procreate like that. So I'll give you that. It's unntaural. But is it immoral? That's another question? Is it morally wrong to sleep with a member of the same sex? What exactly is wrong about that? Is the fact that you can't procreate that way wrong? Why is it wrong to not procreate? It it wrong to never have children? Is it immoral to not have children? Is it wrong to stick your penis inside another man? Will it hurt other human beings?

It certainly is unnatural and you certainly can't have children that way. But is it wrong? Morally wrong? Should we force those people to do what we want them to do? Is our man made religious fairlytale more important than freedom? And if so, what's wrong with killing all the jews and arabs. If religion is more important, than WHY NOT commit genocide if our religion deems it morally correct?

I hope you see my point. I truly do. I don't mind if we think different. I do mind if you won;t even listen to rational thought.

>But is it immoral?
What is morality?
Morality is the practical application of reason. Sodomy is antithetical to the human biological condition. It's as simple as that.
The struggle of same-sex attraction is caused by various factors; weak or absent fathers, early childhood sexual abuse, or growing up with parents who subordinated reason to their disordered passions. While disordered, same sex attraction is different than the act, which is the issue.
Christian morality isn't so "just because the Church said so."

A religion that demands the unjust murder of an entire people is not a religion that is operating under truth.

my one year old took the mouse as I walked away, now my cursor is gone.
Going to reboot

Ok so this is interesting now. But look I think we got way too far off topic with our conversation here.

I do appreciate that at least you were open to debating it somewhat. And i hope you understood my point. This was never about gays or alcohol or whether bathing in pigeon blood would cure skin diseases (I'm sure you're familiar with Leviticus 14), this was about being open to debate.

And a religion that is open to debate and doesn't unilaterally punish it's people for disagreeing with the religion, is fine by me. But a religion that is stuck in it's ways and refuses to even debate it's moral absolutes, has no place in a position of power. That's what I've been trying to say. And if you disagree with that, well, then perhaps we shouldn't live in the same country. But ideally, I'd rather we settle our differences through civil debate as ultimately, you and I user, share almost entirely the same belief system. Anyways, good chat.

My USB port completely died. Weird timing

Coincidence? I don't think so.

One of the myths that came from Protestant England was the exaggeration of the inquisitions and later, of the united Church and State by the Whigs and Masons.
It supported their stance to demonize the old regime, or the Old World Order.
The age of secular republics was the 'new world order' overthrowing altar and throne.
Civil debate is one of the foundations of the Catholic university.
Even today, with the hierarchy of Catholic clergy being so damnable, they argue for the extension of certain principles to encompass things that were previously categorically condemned. While it is antithetical to Catholicism to renege on the moral, natural, and divine law--these heretic revolutionaries are constantly debating over it.
There are parameters for debate and outcome, even if they ignore it.

It is as if a football game were being played without borders on the field or rules in the rule book. There would be no game.
A child playing in a playground without fences is "free" to run out into the street and get run over, but a playground with fences allows for the free play within the parameters of reason.
That is what the moral law does for human development.
Eh, there's no telling what my one year old did. Also could chalk it up to the Chinese piece of crap case I bought.

Attached: leo-xiii-immortale-dei.jpg (1760x538, 193K)

Look user, like I said, at the end of the day we share a lot of the same moral values. Probably because I used to be Christian myself before becoming an atheist, or perhaps simply because we're both western.

End of the day, i think we both understand where the other comes from. You seem to be a bit stuck on your religion, I disagree with it somewhat.

If we can have civil debate, I really don't mind any religion. But I maintain, that no religion is well equipped to rule. I'm happy to have a mostly aligned and rational religion (i.e. a religion that shares most of its morals with the existing government) such as Christianity be a major religion of the west, given that it does not RULE over the people in any capacity as no religion should. But I would never agree to any religion that isn't completely open to discussion to be ruling over people. If you happen to invent a religion compltely free of bias an open to debate on any issue, then hey, maybe we can debate it's merits of geverning over a country, but until then, I'm happy to keep separation of church and state.

We can have a moajor religoin, hey I encourage it, so long as it's open minded and doesn't interfere with the lives of the people.

>doesn't interfere with the lives of the people
I don't know what this means.
Atheistic regimes interfere with the lives of people.
The current atheistic neo-liberal regime does this all the time.
A religion that does not interfere with the policies of a government will find itself ruled by the policies of that government.
>cf Obama contraception mandate
>cf sodomite unions
>cf bake my cake bigot
Besides, within a system of a united Church and State, the State rules according to the moral, natural, and divine law as taught by the Church.
For instance, in the Spanish Inquisition, it wasn't the Church that sentenced the notorious to death, it was the State.
In fact, prisoners would blaspheme so that they could have their case moved to an inquisition court as they were much more just than the State's. You received a lawyer free of charge, the judges were required to not know you--and if they did, they were excused. The witnesses to the act were vetted by numerous sources that they had no grudge against you.
If convicted, you were told to recant and perform an act of penance. Usually a journey to a church somewhere.

I would jump at the opportunity to move my case from the State to the Church if I could in a heartbeat.
Likewise, the State is concerned with its own stability which is normalized through its religion. Any upset in that stability threatens civil war, potential regicide, and foreign invasion.

>A religion that does not interfere with the policies of a government will find itself ruled by the policies of that government.
Yes but this is different than when a religion superseeds the laws of a government. Take it back to the gay debate for example. Christianity would rule that being gay isn't right and would make it illegal and punishable. Western governmetns, mostly do the opposite. So yes the government in this case is doing the opposite to what the religion would do, BUT, it's only doing so having consulted the moral issues carefully. It does not punish people for being what they want to be so long as they dont hurt anyone else. It prefers freedom of expression over absolute opinions, even if those opnions are right (i.e. it is unnatural to be gay). The government in this case, gives priority to what is fair to the people rather than what is correct in the eyes of religion. This goes back to the whole, if a religion preaches "kill thy enemy", it may not necesarily be morally right.

But yes, ultimately, either religion or government can make the laws and the other will have to submit to the first. But generally speaking, in the west, governments used to be morally right as they were subject to a wider audience than a religion would be. I say used to as most of the west is now cucked due to incapable politicians and overly sensitivist policies. So it can also go wrong if left unchecked. But I'd still argue it's a better system than an absolutist religious government anyday. So long as freedom of speech is mainted above all else that is.

In any case. I must go now I'm afraid, this has been an interesting debate, it seems we've taken over the entire thread. To close, I'm just gonna repeat again, we are very similiar in values. We shouldn't be fighting over this. We just need to be rational.

And regarding the original thread, in the end we both agree. Islam has no place here and is runing the UK and Europe. I think we can agree on that.

>Christianity would rule that being gay isn't right and would make it illegal and punishable.
No, acting on it would be illegal and punishable as it is a crime not only against the moral law but a crime against nature itself.

If "being gay" means having the disorder of same-sex attraction.
The behavior of homosexuality most certainly does harm the other person. There's a reason homosexuals are the smallest demographic on planet earth with the largest suicide rate, depression, and STD infection rate.
Not only this, but the medical problems that arise such as rectal prolapse, "gay bowel," and other unspeakable horrors.

So yes, it is in defense of the common good that offenses against nature be punished swiftly.
Back in the good ol days, when a sodomite priest was caught, he was tried, defrocked, and if he committed it again, he was put to death.
If we had this system in place today, over 81% of the child abuse in the Catholic Church would not have happened.