← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Mithras

Birth of Jesus Denied By New York School System to Justify Ban on Christmas Nativity

Thread ID: 11047 | Posts: 35 | Started: 2003-11-12

Wayback Archive

Mithras [OP]

2003-11-12 16:56 | User Profile

Birth of Jesus Denied By New York School System to Justify Ban on Christmas Nativity Displays

Tue, Nov 11, 2003

ANN ARBOR, MI — The historical fact of the birth of Jesus was denied by the New York School system in pleadings filed with a federal court to justify their total ban on Christmas Nativity displays in New York’s public schools. New York’s legal briefs disputed the claim that the Nativity scene depicts a historical event, and that this event is the basis for the celebration of Christmas. At issue in the federal lawsuit filed last year by the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, is New York’s policy on religious displays, which prohibits public school displays of Christmas Nativity scenes, while at the same time encouraging the display of the Jewish Menorah and the Islamic star and crescent during their respective holidays. Federal Judge Sifton will hear oral arguments this week on the Law Center’s motion to temporarily restrain the City from enforcing its ban on Nativity scenes.

Pursuant to the policy, City schools display the Jewish Menorah and the Islamic star and crescent during Hanukkah and Ramadan, but not the Nativity scene during Christmas. One public school principal issued a memo encouraging teachers to bring to school “religious symbols” that represent the Islamic and Jewish religions. No mention of Christianity was made in this memo. At times, teachers would have students make the Jewish Menorahs that would often adorn the halls of the schools as part of the “authorized” displays. However, the students were not allowed to make and similarly display Nativity scenes. When a parent wrote to her son’s teacher to complain about this, the teacher responded by sending the parent a copy of the school’s “Holiday Displays” policy.

The federal civil rights lawsuit was filed on behalf of Andrea Skoros and her two children, who are both elementary school students in the New York City schools, against the City of New York and several school officials. Ms. Skoros and her children are devout Roman Catholics.

Robert Muise, the Law Center attorney handling the case observed, “This case will decide whether public school officials can enforce a policy that shows preference for Judaism and Islam, but disfavors Christianity. Can Christianity be erased from a public school? Can “Christ” be removed from Christmas? We will soon find out.”

According to the Law Center’s motion, New York’s policy promotes the Jewish and Islamic faiths while conveying the impermissible message of disapproval of Christianity in violation of the U.S. Constitution. The hearing on the motion is scheduled for Thursday, November 13, 2003, in the federal court in Brooklyn.

In December 2001 and again in 2002, Catholic League president William Donohue attempted to get school officials to change their discriminatory policy, with no success. School officials dismissed requests to display the Nativity scene and instead would only allow Christmas trees, erroneously claiming that Supreme Court precedent prohibited them from including the Nativity scene as part of their holiday displays. Remarkably, schools officials permit the display of the Jewish Menorah and Islamic star and crescent, claiming that these are “secular” symbols.

According to Richard Thompson, Chief Counsel and President of the Thomas More Law Center, “New York City’s policy seeks to de-Christianize Christmas and redefine our Nation’s religious heritage. The Thomas More Law Center is determined to protect the important celebration of Christmas from such discrimination and censorship. ”

[url]http://www.thomasmore.org/news.html?NewsID=135&PHPSESSID=22701a1c92a4c6833a6721a12078b529[/url]

Texas Dissident

2003-11-12 18:29 | User Profile

Thanks for the post, Mithras. Seems to me that hell on earth could very well be defined as having to attend a New York public school. Anyway, a few questions come to mind:

• Can it be safely assumed that New York public schools are controlled by a jewish agenda?

• Given that symbolic displays of judaism and islam remain acceptable, while those of Christianity are not, what does that say about the unique nature of Christianity as the target of jewish assault?

• Taking this into account, what should be the position of pro-white folks towards Christianity?

Mithras

2003-11-12 19:21 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Thanks for the post, Mithras. Seems to me that hell on earth could very well be defined as having to attend a New York public school. Anyway, a few questions come to mind:

• Can it be safely assumed that New York public schools are controlled by a jewish agenda?

• Given that symbolic displays of judaism and islam remain acceptable, while those of Christianity are not, what does that say about the unique nature of Christianity as the target of jewish assault?

• Taking this into account, what should be the position of pro-white folks towards Christianity?[/QUOTE]

I have no doubt that Traditional Christianity is a number one target for the jews. I miss the days when the majority of Christians were deeply sincere in the morals they believe in, not by mere belief but by actions as well. It just goes without saying that to believe in a moral existence is to oppose the judaic view. And so I think that white activists must work to reclaim Christianity from the soft, liberal judaisation that has taken place in the last few decades. Where I draw the line is in Christianity's view towards the Pagan religions. I think it is a big mistake to disrespect this part of our history, and it is wrong to call all of pagan practices "devil worship." I think both sides, pagan and Christian can learn alot from each other and unite to battle a common enemy.

More than this, we are clearly facing what is a "war on the majority." If Islam was the religion of the White race, which we properly term, the first world, then I have little doubt that the jews would be targeting that instead of Christianity. Therefore, this "war on the majority" is also a "war on the superior."

Patrick

2003-11-12 19:30 | User Profile

.....Don't you mean ''jew'' York?

golfball

2003-11-12 21:40 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Thanks for the post, Mithras. Seems to me that hell on earth could very well be defined as having to attend a New York public school. .........

.............

• Taking this into account, what should be the position of pro-white folks towards Christianity?[/QUOTE]

I guess that there still are Pro-White political, Christian organizations like The Knights of the Ku Klux Klan available for those that may be looking for an alternative method to become politically active in a pro-white fashion.

It really depends on an individual's sense of urgency and desire to embrace a stronger message for White and Christian expression. Over 135 years and counting!

Texas Dissident

2003-11-12 22:14 | User Profile

[QUOTE=golfball]I guess that there still are Pro-White political, Christian organizations like The Knights of the Ku Klux Klan available for those that may be looking for an alternative method to become politically active in a pro-white fashion. It really depends on an individual's sense of urgency and desire to embrace a stronger message for White and Christian expression. Over 135 years and counting![/QUOTE]

Very true, golfball. The Klan is to be commended for steadfastly holding true to our American, Protestant Christian heritage. However, I was mainly speaking to those individuals within and sympathetic to organizations like the National Alliance and other national socialists. Pierce was quite hostile to Christianity and that legacy is carried on by his devotees. Obviously, the article above makes clear that jewish interests have a special place in their collective heart for Christianity and consider it public enemy number one. Further, that attacks by white racialist groups or individuals on Christianity is putting them in the same camp as organized jewry and ultimately extremely counter-productive to any pro-white racialist campaign.

Hilaire Belloc

2003-11-13 01:03 | User Profile

What should be the position of pro-white folks towards Christianity?

Well I'm sure many people here already some of my views on this topic, and I know Tex knows some of them(he even sent me a PM one time commending them), in that I believe Christianity is a strong foundation for our European heritage.

This article explains alot of what I feel

** [url]http://www.probe.org/docs/threat.html[/url]

Not a Threat: The Contributions of Christianity to Western Society Rick Wade

What If You'd Never Been Born? Do you remember this scene in the movie It's a Wonderful Life? [Perun: I edited this part of the essay cause I thought the dialog contributed little to the main points of the essay]

Do you remember George Bailey's encounter with Clarence the angel? George didn't think life was worth living, and it was Clarence's job to show him he was wrong. To do so, he showed George what Bedford Falls would have been like if George had never been born.

In desperation, George races through town looking for something familiar. After observing him for a little while, Clarence utters this bit of wisdom: "Strange, isn't it? Each man's life touches so many other lives, and when he isn't around he leaves an awful hole, doesn't he?"{2} Inspired by the plot of It's a Wonderful Life, in 1994 D. James Kennedy and Jerry Newcombe wrote a book titled What If Jesus Had Never Been Born?{3} The authors determined to show what the world would be like if, like George Bailey, Jesus had never been born.

Christianity has come under attack from many different directions. It is often derided as the great boogeyman of human civilization. It is presented as an oppressive force with no regard for the higher aspirations of humankind. To throw off its shackles is the way of wisdom.

Kennedy quotes Friederich Nietzsche, a nineteenth century philosopher whose ideas continue to have a profound effect on our society. Said Nietzsche: "I condemn Christianity; I bring against the Christian Church the most terrible of all the accusations that an accuser has ever had in his mouth. It is, to me, the greatest of all imaginable corruptions; it seeks to work the ultimate corruption, the worst possible corruption. The Christian Church has left nothing untouched by its depravity; it has turned every value into worthlessness, and every truth into a lie, and every integrity into baseness of soul."{4}

This article will--we hope¾show just how beneficial Christianity has been, even for its critics. Drawing from Kennedy and Newcombe's book in addition to other literature, we will examine the impact of Christian beliefs on society. The four areas we'll consider are science, human freedom, morality, and healthcare. A theme which will run throughout this discussion is the high value Christianity places on human beings. Far from being a source of oppression, the message of Christ serves to heal, set free, and provide protective boundaries.

Contributions to Science Perhaps the area in which Christianity has been the most vociferously attacked in this century has been the area of science. Religion and science are thought by many to be like oil and water; the two simply don't mix. Religion is thought to offer superstition while science offers facts. It would seem, however, that those who make such a charge haven't given much attention to the history of science. In their book, The Soul of Science,{5} authors Nancy Pearcey and Charles Thaxton make a case for the essential role Christianity played in the development of science. The authors point out four general ways Christianity has positively influenced its development.{6}

First, Christianity provided important presuppositions of science. The Bible teaches that nature is real, not an illusion. It teaches that is has value and that it is good to work with nature. Historically this was an advance over pagan superstitions because the latter saw nature as something to be worshipped or as something filled with spirits which weren't to be angered. As one theologian wrote, "Nature was thus abruptly desacralized, stripped of many of its arbitrary, unpredictable, and doubtless terrifying aspects."{7}

Also, because it was created by God in an orderly fashion, nature is lawful and can be understood. That is, it follows discernible patterns which can be trusted not to change. "As the creation of a trustworthy God, nature exhibited regularity, dependability, and orderliness. It was intelligible and could be studied. It displayed a knowable order."{8}

Second, Christianity sanctioned science. Science "was justified as a means of alleviating toil and suffering."{9} With animistic and pantheistic cultures, God and nature were so closely related that man, being a part of nature, was incapable of transcending it, that is, of gaining any real control over it. A Christian worldview, however, gave man the freedom to subject nature to his needs-with limitations, of course-because man relates primarily to God who is over nature. Technology-or science applied-was developed to meet human needs as an expression of our God-given duty to one another. As one historian put it, "the Christian concept of moral obligation played an important role in attracting people to the study of nature."{10}

Third, Christianity provided motives for pursuing scientific knowledge. As scientists learned more about the wonders of the universe, they saw God's glory being displayed.

Fourth, Christianity "played a role in regulating scientific methodology."{11} Previously, the world was thought to work in perfectly rational ways which could be known primarily through logical deduction. But this approach to science didn't work. Planets don't have to orbit in circular patterns as some people concluded using deductive logic; of course, it was discovered by investigation that they didn't. A newer way of understanding God's creation put the emphasis on God's will. Since God's will couldn't be simply deduced through logical reasoning, experimentation and investigation were necessary. This provided a particular theological grounding for empirical science.

The fact is that it was distinctly Christian beliefs which provided the intellectual and moral foundations for the study of nature and for its application through technology. Thus, although Christianity and some scientists or scientific theories might be in opposition, Christianity and science are not.

Contributions to Human Freedom One of the favorite criticisms of Christianity is that it inhibits freedom. When Christians oppose funding pornography masquerading as art, for example, we're said to be unfairly restricting freedom of expression. When Christians oppose the radical, gender feminism which exalts personal fulfillment over all other social obligations, and which calls for the tearing down of God-given moral structures in favor of "choice" as a moral guide, we're accused of oppression. The problem is that people now see freedom not as self- determination, but as self-determination unhindered by any outside standard of morality. Some go so far in their zeal for self- expression that they expect others to assist them in the process, such as pornographic artists who expect government funding.

There are at least two general factors which limit or define freedom. One we might call the "rules of the game." The other is our nature.

The concert violinist is able to play a concerto because she knows the "rules of the game." In other words, she knows what the musical notation means. She knows how to produce the right sounds from the violin and when to produce them. She might want the "freedom" to make whatever sounds she wishes in whatever key and whatever beat, but who would want to listen? Similarly, as part of God's universe, we need to operate according to the rules of the game. He knows how life on earth is best lived, so we need to live according to His will and design.

Our nature also structures our freedom. A fish can try to express its freedom by living on dry land, but it won't be free long; it won't be alive long! We, too, are truly free only in so far as we live according to our nature-not our fallen nature, but our nature as created by God. This is really another way of looking at the "rules of the game" idea. But it's necessary to give it special focus because some of the "freedoms" we desire go against our nature, such as the freedom some want to engage in homosexual activity.

Some people see Christianity as a force which tries to inhibit proper expression of who we are. But it is the idea of helping people attain the freedom to be and do as God intended that has fueled much Christian activity over the years. For example, Christians were actively engaged in the battle against slavery because of their high view of man as made in God's image.{12}

Another example is feminism. Radical feminists complain that Christianity has been an oppressive force over women. But it seems to have escaped their notice that Christianity made significant steps in elevating women above the place they held before Christ came.{13}

While it is true that women have often been truly oppressed throughout history, even by Christian men, it is false that Christianity itself is oppressive toward them. In fact, in an article titled "Women of Renewal: A Statement" published in First Things,{14} such noted female scholars as Elizabeth Achtemeier, Roberta Hestenes, Frederica Mathewes-Green, and May Stewart Van Leeuwen stated unequivocally their acceptance of historic Christianity. And it's a sure thing that any of the signatories of this statement would be quite vocal in her opposition to real oppression!

The problem isn't that Christianity is opposed to freedom, but that it acknowledges the laws of our Creator who knows better than we do what is good for us. The doctrines of creation and redemption define for us our nature and our responsibilities to God. His "rules of the game" will always be oppressive to those who seek absolute self-determination. But as we'll see, it is by submitting to God that we make life worth living.

Contributions to Morality Let's turn our attention to the issue of morality. Christians are often accused of trying to ram their morality down people's throats. In some instances this might accurately describe what some Christians have done. But for the most part, I believe, the criticism follows our simple declaration of what we believe is right and wrong and our participation in the political and social arenas to see such standards codified and enforced. The question that needs to be answered is whether the high standards of morality taught in Scripture have served society well. Has Christianity served to make individuals and societies better and to provide a better way of life?

In a previous article I wrote briefly about the brutality that characterized Greco-Roman society in Jesus' day.{15} We often hear about the wondrous advances of that society; but do you know about the cruelty? The Roman games, in which "beasts fought men, men fought men; and the vast audience waited hopefully for the sight of death,"{16} reveal the lust for blood. The practice of child exposure shows the low regard for human life the Romans had. Unwanted babies were left to die on trash heaps. Some of these were taken to be slaves or prostitutes.{17} It was distinctly Christian beliefs that brought these practices to an end.

In the era following "the disruption of Charlemagne's great empire", it was the Latin Christian Church which "patiently and persistently labored to combat the forces of disintegration and decay," and "succeeded little by little in restraining violence and in restoring order, justice, and decency."{18}

The Vikings provide an example of how the gospel can positively affect a people group. Vikings were fierce plunderers who terrorized the coastlands of Europe. James Kennedy says that our word berserk comes from their fighting men who were called "berserkers."{19} Gradually the teachings of Christ contributed to major changes in these people. In 1020 A.D., Christianity became law under King Olav. Practices "such as blood sacrifice, black magic, the 'setting out' of infants, slavery and polygamy" became illegal.{20}

In modern times, it was Christians who led the fight in England against slavery.{21} Also, it was the teaching of the Wesleys that was largely responsible for the social changes which prevented the social unrest which might have been expected in the Industrial Revolution.{22}

In an editorial published in the Chicago Tribune in 1986 titled "Religious Right Deserves Respect,"{23} Reo Christenson argues that conservative Christians have been vindicated with respect to their concerns about such things as drinking, the sexual revolution, and discipline in schools. He says that "if anybody's values have been vindicated over the last 20 years, it is theirs." He concludes with this comment: "The Religious Right is not always wrong."

To go against God's moral standards is destructive to individuals and societies. In a column which ran in the Dallas Morning News following the shootings at Columbine High School,{24} a junior at Texas A&M University asks hard questions of her parents' generation including these: "Why have you neglected to teach us values and morals? Why haven't you lived moral lives that we could model our own after?"{25}

Why indeed! In time, our society will see the folly of its ways by the destruction it is bringing on itself. Let's pray that it happens sooner rather than later.

Contributions to Healthcare Healthcare is another area where Christianity has made a positive impact on society. Christians have not only been involved in healthcare; they've often been at the forefront in serving the physical health of people. Although some early Christians believed that disease came from God, so that trying to cure the sick would be going against God's will, the opposite impulse was also seen in those who saw the practice of medicine as an exercise of Christian charity.{26}

God had already shown His concern for the health of His people through the laws given through Moses. In his book, The Story of Medicine, Roberto Margotta says that the Hebrews made an important contribution to medicine by their knowledge of personal hygiene given in the book of Leviticus. In fact, he says, "the steps taken in mediaeval Europe to counteract the spread of 'leprosy' were straight out of the Bible."{27}

Of course, it was Jesus' concern for suffering that provided the primary motivation for Christians to engage in healthcare. In the Middle Ages, for examples, monks provided physical relief to the people around them. Some monasteries became infirmaries. "The best- known of these," says Margotta, "belonged to the Swiss monastery of St Gall which had been founded in 720 by an Irish monk; . . . medicines were made up by the monks themselves from plants grown in the herb garden. Help was always readily available for the sick who came to the doors of the monastery. In time, the monks who devoted themselves to medicine emerged from their retreats and started visiting the sick in their own homes." Monks were often better doctors than their lay counterparts and were in great demand.{28}

Christians played a significant role in the establishment of hospitals. In 325 A.D., the Council of Nicea "decreed that hospitals were to be duly established wherever the Church was established," says James Kennedy.{29} He notes that the hospital built by St. Basil of Caesarea in 370 even treated lepers who previously had been isolated.{30}

In the United States, the early hospitals were "framed and motivated by the responsibilities of Christian stewardship."{31} They were originally established to help the poor sick, but weren't intended to provide long-term care lest they become like the germ- infested almshouses.

A key factor in making long-term medical care possible was the "professionalization of nursing" because of higher standards of sanitation.{32} Before the 16th century, religious motivations were key in providing nursing for the sick. Anne Summers says that the willingness to fracture family ties to serve others, a disciplined lifestyle, and "a sense of heavenly justification," all of which came from Christian beliefs, undergirded ministry to the sick.{33} Even if the early nursing orders didn't achieve their own sanitation goals, "they were, nevertheless, often reaching higher sanitary standards than those previously known to the sick poor."{34}

There is much more that could be told about the contributions of Christianity to society, including the stories of Florence Nightingale, whose nursing school in London began modern nursing, and who saw herself as being in the service of God; or of the establishment of the Red Cross through the zeal of an evangelical Christian; or of the modern missions movement which continues to see Christian medical professionals devote their lives to the needs of the suffering in some of the darkest parts of the world.{35} It is obvious that in the area of medicine, as in a number of others, Christians have made a major contribution. Thus, those who deride Christianity as being detrimental are either tremendously biased in their thinking or are ignorant of history. **

[quote=mithras] Where I draw the line is in Christianity's view towards the Pagan religions. I think it is a big mistake to disrespect this part of our history, and it is wrong to call all of pagan practices "devil worship." I think both sides, pagan and Christian can learn alot from each other and unite to battle a common enemy.

From a purely cultural point of view, I have nothing against European heathenism/paganism(whichever term you prefer*). It's as much part of Europe's heritage as Christianity and it should be preserved. In fact Christianity actually did do this to some extent, many of the old pagan/heathen rituals and beliefs were adopted into the Christian religion or day to day practices of Christian people. You can clearly see this in the day to day religious pratices among us Eastern Christians(Orthodox and Eastern Catholic). In many cases, certain rituals and festivels that were meant to revere certain gods were preserved but not served to revere Christian saints(for example a festivel to honor the Rain god would now honor the patron saint of rain).

So only a purely metaphysical level do I oppose paganism/heathenism, as does paganism/heathenism opposes Christianity on the metaphysical level.

*I reason why I'm using the pagan/heathen term is that many in within this faith prefer the term "Heathen" to pagan while others do not. So I'm just using the term to avoid any unnecessary flaming problems here(I've had enough of that lately!).

Franco

2003-11-13 01:31 | User Profile

Tex wrote:

However, I was mainly speaking to those individuals within and sympathetic to organizations like the National Alliance and other national socialists. Pierce was quite hostile to Christianity and that legacy is carried on by his devotees. Obviously, the article above makes clear that jewish interests have a special place in their collective heart for Christianity and consider it public enemy number one. Further, that attacks by white racialist groups or individuals on Christianity is putting them in the same camp as organized jewry and ultimately extremely counter-productive to any pro-white racialist campaign.

Tex, lemme ask ya: Did you ever hear the National Alliance criticize Father Coughlin? Ever hear me criticize Father Coughlin? Nope. Why not? Guess.

Until Christianity wakes up and stops being a haven for ZionChristers and negro-lovers, you Christians will continue to be on the receiving end of abuse -- sadly, even on this forum, which is, granted, a Christian-based forum. And yes, sometimes I feel bad about bashing Christians on the OD forum, but I bash the ZionChristers, not guys like golfball and Perun and so forth [at least not to any degree]. My beef is with the JudeoChristers who can't see the light and embrace race first-and-foremost. Race must come first, always.

golfball

2003-11-13 01:52 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]............

Further, that attacks by white racialist groups or individuals on Christianity is putting them in the same camp as organized jewry and ultimately extremely counter-productive to any pro-white racialist campaign.[/QUOTE]

It really shows too. I have expressed differing viewpoints concerning the role of Christianity and Race with atheists and paganists and other beliefs and have found myself in a literal struggle with un-godly forces.

I understand that unity with some folks will not be possible, and sometimes it is downright disgusting. However, where I cannot agree on some of their views and they cannot agree with some of mine, about the only meeting of the efforts occurs when race and future come out of the haze and presents itself as a desired goal of all concerned.

It is heartning to know that more and more Whites and Christians are waking up from that demon induced slumber and I am glad for that. It would be nice for some of those others to consider the Holy Bible in a racial aspect as well. What was once locked up is soon opened for those seeking answers to racial issues in the Holy Bible.

Quite a few Christians in these parts understand that the K J V 1611 is a book of war. It is a book about the spiritual war as well as the physical one. When I talk with those that spew venomous hatred out concerning their contempt for the Word of God, I feel as if I am in the presence of the children of the devil. It becomes disenheartning when it is whites that participate in such attacks. They serve their master, I don't.

Hopefully, some may feel the pull to reconsider their lives and strange beliefs while they still have a chance to do so. It is terrible to squander the gift of Grace.

Hilaire Belloc

2003-11-13 02:09 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Franco]And yes, sometimes I feel bad about bashing Christians on the OD forum, but I bash the ZionChristers, not guys like golfball and Perun and so forth [at least not to any degree]. My beef is with the JudeoChristers who can't see the light and embrace race first-and-foremost. Race must come first, always.[/QUOTE]

And this where the main problem lies. Franco sees things in purely naturalistic/biological materialistic which even many anti-Christians like Evola disagreed with. Although I don't deny race/ethnicity as a basis of social organization and identity, but I do oppose those who see it purely through the naturalist paradigm.

Many traditional Christians, including Martin Luther, were more against the Jews out of metaphysics more so than race. Thats not to say they disregarded race altogether, but saw the Jewish mentality and values as the bigger threat than simply just the Jewish race. The Jewish race is the enemy, but I say the Jewish worldview is even greater because its infectous nature knows no racial/ethnic bounds!

Walter Yannis

2003-11-13 10:12 | User Profile

David Sloan Wilson's "Darwin's Cathedral" (urged on us by mwdallas) convinced me that no movement can succeed without drawing on our instinct to define and organize ourselves around unquestioned religious beliefs and symbols. The movements that really succeeded in history are grounded in religion. Even spactacular failures like the mere ideologies Nazism and the Bolshevism drew their considerable strength from the elemental forces of blood and soil (Germans and Jews, respectively).

As I've written here many times, religion and genetics are inextricably interconnected. The average abilities of a population's gene pool establish the broad parameters of that group's abilities and tendencies, whereas religion establishes a cultural wall protecting the integrity of the gene pool.

A genetic group is defined by a system of pre-rational religious beliefs and organized around religious symbols. I say yet again, [B]the question is not whether we will have a religion - we will, for Evolution designed us to self-identify and organize as a genetic group around religious symbols, and we cannot hope to somehow rise above this most fundamental fact of our existence. The only question is which religion we'll have and NOT whether we'll in fact have one.[/B]

Especially instructive is David Sloan Wilson's description of the organic organization of Bali rice farmers around their animist temple. Incredibly complex social-organizational decisions of the most prosaic kind (when to plant, when to flood the fields to kill rats, when to harvest) are all decided automatically without the need for a state apparatus trhough the loose commonality of the animist temple, because human beings are evolved to organize themselves into human hives around religious beliefs and symbols, just as ants are evolved to organize themselves around scent cues.

Accept it, brothers. Without the vital strength of a common religion, we are nothing. Accept that if we whites don't want to be absorbed/dispossessed, we're going to have to have a religion that unites us and enables us to tap into man's deeply evolved instinct automatically to organize society around relgious symbols. Without that we're truly voices like wind in dry grass, gesture without motion, headpiece of straw, as Elliot put it. We're just ideologues - engaging in worthless apologetics cut off from the vitality of real religion.

Science has established all of this beyond reasonable dispute - read David Sloan Wilson, Edward O. Wilson, Sir Arthur Kieth, and the list could go on. There's simply no doubt about the brute fact that we are evolved to organize ourselves around pre-rational religious symbols and beliefs, and we cannot hope to rise above that anymore than my computer can hope to rise above its operating system, or my neighbor's pigs from rising above rooting for grubs. We're stuck with this, like it or not, so I suggest that we learn to like it. E.O. Wilson understood this, and then illogically proposed to replace genuine religion with some for of scientific humanism, roundly failing to recognize that his unquestioned assumptions about equality and human rights were themselves the product of Christianity (rather like Wintermute condemning Yahweh for being mean while proposing Zeus as an alternative), but I digress. I find it more than a little frustrating that we can't ever seem to get agreement on this most fundamental point.

Now, if we've agreed thus far (please advise whether we've agreed thus far), as I've said the question before us is "what religion do we choose?"

For all the reasons detailed previously, Christianity is clearly the best choice, but we can proceed with discussing which relgion we should choose after we've agreed that we need a common relgion if we hope to succeed.

And let's get over this crap of whether these beliefs are "right or wrong." The question is pointless, precisely because, again as David Sloan Wilson points out, our reason instinct and our religion instinct evolved separately in response to different environmental demands. Reason is designed to solve distinct survival problems as they arise, whereas religion is designed to organize the tribe, give it an identity and a cause to live for. They're different spheres - and it is obvious that religious faith precedes reason. Edward O. Wilson agreed with Locke that reason is the handmaiden of the emotions. Reason can help us solve a problem, but can never tell us why it should be solved. Of course, reason and religion overlap and sometimes conflict, and our integration as personalities requires that reason be mollified. This is called theology and apologetics. The reason must be appeased, but science proves that faith precedes reason and gives it the context within which it can work. As St. Augustine put it, I believe so that I can understand. Science proves the sage wisdom of the Bishop of Hippo, but again I digress.

My years with OD and SF lead me to believe that this thing is doomed to failure if we fail to achieve a commonality in basic religious beliefs and cult. The recent bannings of our Nazi friends was inevitable - you can't get anything done if there isn't agreement on fundamentals - you just wind up spinning your wheels as the sides throw mud at each other. And you can't achieve anything great unless the group is inspired by the fervor that only genuine relgion can give. Wintermute mentioned a while back that we, despite the tremendous individual talent present on this board, can't do a successful mass mailing of our literature like the Christian group did with the movie about Jesus, sending a copy to everybody (!) the entire state of Texas. The above discussion answers why this is so - we're not united by a system of religious beliefs and practices; if we were so united, things like mass mailings of WN materials would arise spontaneously.

In my humble opinion, if TD hopes to really make OD into something that is effective, he's going to have to continue the contraction of focus that began with the bannings of Leland Gaunt et al. I know that this contradicts some of my prior statements - I genuinely liked talking to Fade and Braun (not to mention the venerable NeoNietzsche). But it's just entertainment - it aims at nothing.

As NeoNietzsche asked many times "who is the god of the WN's." I've long agreed with Neo that this is the great question that faces us - I'm convinced of this now more than ever. Neo says Nazism, I say the Father of Jesus Christ. We talked that over at length, and now it's time to choose. Until we make that committment, we'll be stuck spinning our wheels in the same old mud.

If we want to succeed, we're going to have to BLODDY DEFINE ourselves in terms of religion. Neo knows it, I know it. Anybody who's read evolutionary psychology (even as shallowly as me) knows it. TD is apparently learing this with the recent bannings.

Anyway, I really think that we need to get this basic point straight before proceeding with the discussion. Please let me know whether you agree with my assertion that success turns on (at least, basic) religious unity. We can discuss the pros and cons of Christianity versus Paganism versus Nazism for our movement only after we've agreed that we must first agree.

Walter

il ragno

2003-11-13 12:19 | User Profile

[QUOTE]Can it be safely assumed that New York public schools are controlled by a jewish agenda?[/QUOTE]

Trust me on this: a NYC public school education is absolutely 100% [U]worthless[/U]. It is something to be endured if it cannot be avoided altogether and - if possible, later in life (God willing) - overcome.

On more than one occasion, old schoolmates and I - long removed from Albert Shanker's clutches and having seen a bit of the world in the intervening years, including [I]non[/I]-New York school systems - have spitballed the idea of how much further we might have gone had we been schooled [I]anywhere [/I] but here. It's a question so depressing that the silences shout louder than the spoken answers.

Don't be fooled by the image of the New York "inteligentsia". Those folks are invariably out-of-towners who settled here later,as adults. Those of us who grew up here were thrown to the yarmulked wolves of [I]social engineering [/I] and [I]pseudo-knowledge[/I]. As reflected in the reading scores of school after school, year after year. (But we're all up-to-date on our Holocaust studies,you betcha!)

Mithras

2003-11-13 15:40 | User Profile

[QUOTE=perun1201] From a purely cultural point of view, I have nothing against European heathenism/paganism(whichever term you prefer*). It's as much part of Europe's heritage as Christianity and it should be preserved. In fact Christianity actually did do this to some extent, many of the old pagan/heathen rituals and beliefs were adopted into the Christian religion or day to day practices of Christian people. You can clearly see this in the day to day religious pratices among us Eastern Christians(Orthodox and Eastern Catholic). In many cases, certain rituals and festivels that were meant to revere certain gods were preserved but not served to revere Christian saints(for example a festivel to honor the Rain god would now honor the patron saint of rain).

So only a purely metaphysical level do I oppose paganism/heathenism, as does paganism/heathenism opposes Christianity on the metaphysical level. [/QUOTE]

I parted ways with Christianity because (a) I don't see it today as it once was or could have been (b) its message is often contradictory (c) communion-in-hand did not work for me (assuming that communion means communion with spirits or one's Holy Guardian Angel).

For these reasons I became a Heathen or Pagan who practices the old magical rites.

I know from experience that most of the venom from the pagans against Christians is due to the fact that (many) Christians are so intolerant of pagans, often referring to them as "devil worshippers." This is not good. We can't have a "Christianity or death" policy. Never again the burning times!

It is a pain to see this intolerance towards pagans when the mainstream is accepting gays, muds, the mafia, etc.

Pagans you will find are not against God or Supreme Being, but deeply wish to join in union with their God. This is the core message of Christianity, so we are not as different from Christians as many suspect.

Walter Yannis

2003-11-13 16:43 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Mithras]I parted ways with Christianity because (a) I don't see it today as it once was or could have been (b) its message is often contradictory (c) communion-in-hand did not work for me (assuming that communion means communion with spirits or one's Holy Guardian Angel).

For these reasons I became a Heathen or Pagan who practices the old magical rites.

I know from experience that most of the venom from the pagans against Christians is due to the fact that (many) Christians are so intolerant of pagans, often referring to them as "devil worshippers." This is not good. We can't have a "Christianity or death" policy. Never again the burning times!

It is a pain to see this intolerance towards pagans when the mainstream is accepting gays, muds, the mafia, etc.

Pagans you will find are not against God or Supreme Being, but deeply wish to join in union with their God. This is the core message of Christianity, so we are not as different from Christians as many suspect.[/QUOTE]

I like pagans. Some of my best friends are pagans. It's just that I'm coming to believe that it's pointless to try to work together on anything. We just distract each other.

Walter

Franco

2003-11-13 22:00 | User Profile

I was a Christian until about 1990. I could no longer handle the baloney -- Blacks are "eekwal," Jesus was "a Jew," illegal Mexican immigrants are "our brothers," and so much dogma like that. Cultural poison, itz.

I knew a Methodist pastor named Baker who told me once that [Judeo]Christianity's views on race are kin to Marx's, but "do not tell anyone." I always remembered that, and that was one of the reasons I bailed out of Christianity. Then a guy suggested Eastern Orthodox, but they didn't name the Jew or Black either. No religion did, or does.

If you wanna be a Father Coughlin, wonderful. But if you wanna preach "we-is-all-eekwal" goobledegook, sorry. We Whites cannot use you -- in fact, you hinder our efforts.

To the Christians on this board, tell me which point above is incorrect, and why, and I'll recant. Otherwise...

:holiday:

Mithras

2003-11-13 22:07 | User Profile

Franco,

If you want name-the-jew Christianity, try Traditional Catholicism.

Here is one website: [url]http://www.fatherfeeney.org/[/url]

Franco

2003-11-13 22:16 | User Profile

Mithras: I like it! Heh, heh....

Hey, Tex, hitch yer wagon to this guy...

:)

[edited]

Franco

2003-11-13 22:18 | User Profile

Mithras: in fact, I'm gonna link to that Catholic guy at my website...

:1eye:

Hilaire Belloc

2003-11-13 23:38 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Franco]Then a guy suggested Eastern Orthodox, but they didn't name the Jew or Black either. No religion did, or does.

I don't know who you talked to Franco, but Eastern Orthodoxy does name the Jew! Maybe not in the Alex Linder fashion, but it indeed does name the Jew. Unless you talked to some members of the Orthodox Church of America, which tends to be more liberal and "judeo-Christian" in nature than their old world brethen.

I even provided some Orthodox links that do name the Jew!

This essay explains Talumudic Judaism very simply as the domination of the Jewish race over the Gentiles [url]http://www.stvladimirs.ca/library/bnei-noach.html[/url]

Then there's this Orthodox site that does name the Jew [url]http://oag.ru/[/url] (don't believe me, just click on the library link)

Then there's the writings of Fydor Doestoevsky.

The Greek Orthodox Archbishop Christodoulos names the Jew in many of his speeches. [url]http://www.liesexposed.net/nfp/issue0106/greek.htm[/url]

Why Jews have been decieved by Rabbis [url]http://agrino.org/orthodoxy/jews.htm[/url]

Patrick

2003-11-14 04:16 | User Profile

"To the Christians on this board, tell me which point above is incorrect, and why, and I'll recant. Otherwise..."

Well...

.....The equality thing; no, wait, I guess they do that... Oh! There's the ''Jesus was a 'jew'" lie; well, I guess they do that too, regardless how preposterous the notion... Let's see; what can I say to defend them?

.....Nothing, I guess; I'll settle for ''whores''; they build a pretty building to God, then mount a penis on it, with the solar wheel... I reckon they're in serious hot water; and they still fail to name the ''jew''...

Walter Yannis

2003-11-14 06:41 | User Profile

[QUOTE]If you wanna be a Father Coughlin, wonderful. But if you wanna preach "we-is-all-eekwal" goobledegook, sorry. We Whites cannot use you -- in fact, you hinder our efforts.

To the Christians on this board, tell me which point above is incorrect, and why, and I'll recant. Otherwise...[/QUOTE]

VDARE graciously published a letter I wrote a couple years ago that addresses this very point. [url]http://www.vdare.com/letters/tl_123001.htm[/url]

Basically, the answer is that Christianity has not only recognized the collective existence and inalienable rights of separate genetic-cultural groups called "nations," Christianity teaches that this division of mankind into nations is a central part of each individual's salvation.

The Catholic Church hierarchy is very two-faced about this. Official Church teaching is vitally nationalistic, but you'd never guess it from the anorexic suburban "we're all equal" garbaged spewed forth by our lavender clergy, may their bodies be turned over to Satan so that their souls may be saved.

The simple truth is that "diversity" and "multiculturalism" are the Sin of Babel, and the fact that our clergy at all levels actively discourages recognition of this awful sin speaks loudly of Satan's deep infiltration of our inner ranks.

Now you know that Christianity is profoundly nationalist, so I hope that you can look past our little faggot infestation and re-join us. I tip my hat to my Orthodox brothers who have always held fast to the national divisions of the Churches.

Here is the letter VDARE published:

[QUOTE]TODAY'S LETTER: A Catholic Reader Pronounces VDARE.COM Doctrinally Sound From: Walter Yannis

Thank you for posting Chilton Williamson Jr.'s beautiful piece on St. Augustine and the National Question.

We Catholics need look no further than the Catechism of the Catholic Church for the Church's teaching on this vital issue:

[B]56. "After the unity of the human race was shattered by sin God at once sought to save humanity part by part. The covenant with Noah after the flood gives expression to the principle of the divine economy toward the 'nations', in other words, towards men grouped 'in their lands, each with (its) own language, by their families, in their nations'.[Gen 10:5 ; cf. Gen 9:9-10, 16 ; Gen 10:20-31 .]"

1. "This state of division into many nations, each entrusted by divine providence to the guardianship of angels, is at once cosmic, social and religious. It is intended to limit the pride of fallen humanity [Cf. Acts 17:26-27 ; Dt 4:19 ; Dt 32:8 vLXX.] united only in its perverse ambition to forge its own unity as at Babel.[Cf. Wis 10:5 ; Gen 11:4-6 .] But, because of sin, both polytheism and the idolatry of the nation and of its rulers constantly threaten this provisional economy with the perversion of paganism.[Cf. Rom 1:18-25 .]"

2. "The covenant with Noah remains in force during the times of the Gentiles, until the universal proclamation of the Gospel.[Cf. Gen 9:16 ; Lk 21:24 ; DV 3.] The Bible venerates several great figures among the Gentiles: Abel the just, the king-priest Melchisedek - a figure of Christ - and the upright 'Noah, Daniel, and Job'.[Cf. Gen 14:18 ; Heb 7:3 ; Ezek 14:14 .] Scripture thus expresses the heights of sanctity that can be reached by those who live according to the covenant of Noah, waiting for Christ to 'gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad'.[Jn 11:52 .]"[/B]

The Church teaches that the division of mankind into nations defined by the indicia of common descent ("by their families"), culture ("with their own languages") and sovereign territory ("in their lands") is instituted by God Himself as an integral part of His plan of salvation, and thus is of "cosmic" importance.

Since unlimited immigration dilutes races, bastardizes cultures, and makes a mockery of territorial sovereignty, no Catholic could support "open borders" and remain true to the teachings of the Magisterium.

The calls of many of our clergy to open our borders with Catholic Mexico are motivated not by Catholic teaching, but rather by a cynical drive to increase their own influence. Such calls are the very sin of Babel.

I hope my fellow Catholics will gently point out the articles of the Catechism to their liberal clergy. And while they're at it, why not ask them why the Church chose to canonize that greatest of all anti-immigrant Know Nothings, St. Joan D'Arc?

Merry Christmas!

December 30, 2001 [/QUOTE]

Walter Yannis

2003-11-14 06:52 | User Profile

Franco:

Actually, I shouldn't have answered that question above, because it puts the cart before the horse.

There is a threshold question here: do you agree that the WN movement must be united in religion to succeed?

If not, please explain why not in terms of the arguments presented above.

This really is the central question. As Neo put it, "who is the god of war of the WN's?" Exactly. Do you agree that this is the first question?

Please address the question.

Walter

Franco

2003-11-14 21:05 | User Profile

Walter --

Well, the answer to your question is very simple. WNs already have a religion: it's called RACE. Being White. That IS their religion. Everything a true WN does, says, or thinks, 24/7, hinges on race. Period. In that regard, it is a religion.

Sure, their may be ideological differences between strains of WN [just like in Christianity]. But to a true WN, race is indeed a religion. Everything we WNs do, or say, or think, hinges on "is it good for Whites as a whole?" And, it is spiritual in that sense, as well.

:holiday:

Patrick

2003-11-14 22:20 | User Profile

Franco...

.....Sure sounds like Christianity to me...

BTW...

.....Give me the weekend to ponder that other issue...

Franco

2003-11-14 22:30 | User Profile

Patrick -- ok.

As to Christianity being concerned with being White, only some Christians are -- if I had to guess, only 30% are.

Hilaire Belloc

2003-11-15 03:36 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Franco]Walter --

Well, the answer to your question is very simple. WNs already have a religion: it's called RACE. Being White. That IS their religion. Everything a true WN does, says, or thinks, 24/7, hinges on race. Period. In that regard, it is a religion.

Sure, their may be ideological differences between strains of WN [just like in Christianity]. But to a true WN, race is indeed a religion. Everything we WNs do, or say, or think, hinges on "is it good for Whites as a whole?" And, it is spiritual in that sense, as well. [/QUOTE]

Franco, I fail to see how race constitues a religion. In fact what you just said is something you'd expect to hear from a Rabbi talking about protecting the Chosen from the Goyim in order to preserve the faith.

Which further proves my point that the Jewish consciousness is more the threat than the Jewish race itself, because sadly I see many WNs approaching things from a Jewish-like perspective. You don't defeat your enemy by becoming him!

Walter Yannis

2003-11-15 14:34 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Franco]Walter --

Well, the answer to your question is very simple. WNs already have a religion: it's called RACE. Being White. That IS their religion. Everything a true WN does, says, or thinks, 24/7, hinges on race. Period. In that regard, it is a religion.

Sure, their may be ideological differences between strains of WN [just like in Christianity]. But to a true WN, race is indeed a religion. Everything we WNs do, or say, or think, hinges on "is it good for Whites as a whole?" And, it is spiritual in that sense, as well.

:holiday:[/QUOTE]

Franco: your answer is altogether too facile - even flippant.

Obviously, religion is about a lot more than a committment to one's race. It's about ritual and beliefs, and the customs and law that arise from them. The two questions are related, as I write above, but clearly they're not the same. Religion is the protective ritualistic wall behind which the race thrives - by definition it isn't the race itself.

I repeat Neo's question: who is the god of war of the WN's?

You also failed to address the articles of the Catechism set forth above. Do you agree that traditional Christian theology is profoundly nationalistic - in fact viewing national identity as an integral component of salvation?

Walter

W.R.I.T.O.S

2003-11-18 01:35 | User Profile

[QUOTE=perun1201]Franco, I fail to see how race constitues a religion. In fact what you just said is something you'd expect to hear from a Rabbi talking about protecting the Chosen from the Goyim in order to preserve the faith.

Which further proves my point that the Jewish consciousness is more the threat than the Jewish race itself, because sadly I see many WNs approaching things from a Jewish-like perspective. You don't defeat your enemy by becoming him![/QUOTE]

No, your dead wrong about this. The white race will not survive if it does not ditch Jesus's turn the other cheek, love your enemy, the meek shall inherit the earth morality. To the extent that we need religion at all, the only religion that can help us is particularist religion which only claims to be for our people's benefit.

Hilaire Belloc

2003-11-18 13:34 | User Profile

[QUOTE=W.R.I.T.O.S]No, your dead wrong about this. The white race will not survive if it does not ditch Jesus's turn the other cheek, love your enemy, the meek shall inherit the earth morality. To the extent that we need religion at all, the only religion that can help us is particularist religion which only claims to be for our people's benefit.[/QUOTE]

And you proved yourself an idiot on Christian theology! When Jesus tells you to turn the other cheek, he's telling you not to use violence to solve your personal problems but one should seek vengence thru the state, which is ordained by God to hand out justice with the sword! Even St. Paul tells how its a Christian's duty to take up arms to defend his country! Then there are the works of the early fathers who also speak about the "Just War". Christianity has not nor has it ever been a pacifist religion, thats Judeo-Christian BS!

We won't defeat the Jews by becoming them!

t_electric

2003-11-19 00:13 | User Profile

[QUOTE=perun1201] We won't defeat the Jews by becoming them![/QUOTE]

Wasn't Jesus a Jew?

Hilaire Belloc

2003-11-19 05:00 | User Profile

[QUOTE=t_electric]Wasn't Jesus a Jew?[/QUOTE]

Not according to Jewish tradition!

W.R.I.T.O.S

2003-11-22 01:55 | User Profile

[QUOTE=perun1201]And you proved yourself an idiot on Christian theology! When Jesus tells you to turn the other cheek, he's telling you not to use violence to solve your personal problems but one should seek vengence thru the state, which is ordained by God to hand out justice with the sword! Even St. Paul tells how its a Christian's duty to take up arms to defend his country! Then there are the works of the early fathers who also speak about the "Just War". Christianity has not nor has it ever been a pacifist religion, thats Judeo-Christian BS!

We won't defeat the Jews by becoming them![/QUOTE]

One of the reasons why I have a hard time respecting Christianity is that except maybe in the very early days, Christians have not seriously attempted to follow the actual teachings of Jesus. All aspects of Christianity that people like you bring up to defend it were added on later to serve the state and other earthly interests, they are not the teachings of Jesus. The problem with Christianity is that it's a universalistic religion grafted onto our most mortal enemy's particularistic religion. It both disarms own own natural defensive instincts and encourages us to identify with the group conciousness of another people

I think that Christianity's universalism is more of a problem for the Western church and especially Protestantism. Don't take your experiences in the explicitly ethnic based Russian Orthodox church to be representative of Christianity as a whole. The churches that white Americans like me who trace our ancestory to Western Europe are likely to members of have worked tirelessly against any kind of white group interests.

Hilaire Belloc

2003-11-22 03:43 | User Profile

[QUOTE=W.R.I.T.O.S]One of the reasons why I have a hard time respecting Christianity is that except maybe in the very early days, Christians have not seriously attempted to follow the actual teachings of Jesus. All aspects of Christianity that people like you bring up to defend it were added on later to serve the state and other earthly interests, they are not the teachings of Jesus.

Ahh, yes approach things from a Protestant "scriptures only" point of view. Yes thats the only way anti-Christian jerks like you have any chance of trying to discredit Christian teachings, because you know full well that Christian teachings refute many of the accusations made against the faith. There is more to Christianity than simply scriptures, just like theres more to Communist ideology than simply the writings of Marx. So basically you reject Christianity, but yet you refuse to look at the big picture of Christianity!

The problem with Christianity is that it's a universalistic religion grafted onto our most mortal enemy's particularistic religion.

Yes its universalistic, but not uniform. Paul himself boasts of his nationality and even the book of Revelation declares that the existance of nations will continue even after the second coming. Jesus even declares himself a member of the Israelite nation, so basically your argument just falls apart even when looking strictly at scriptures!!

It both disarms own own natural defensive instincts and encourages us to identify with the group conciousness of another people

:lol: and where does this teach that?

I think that Christianity's universalism is more of a problem for the Western church and especially Protestantism. Don't take your experiences in the explicitly ethnic based Russian Orthodox church to be representative of Christianity as a whole. The churches that white Americans like me who trace our ancestory to Western Europe are likely to members of have worked tirelessly against any kind of white group interests.[/QUOTE]

Yes Protestantism in many ways sowed the seeds for its own destruction, and largely because of its own "scriptures only" approach which in many ways denied Protestants access to the long list of Christian teachings that existed throughout the centuries. Protestantism also declares that a priest can interpret scriptures however he pleases wheras Catholic/Orthodox have to adhere to traditional interpretations of scripture.

Walter Yannis

2003-11-22 07:24 | User Profile

You're doing a great job defending the Holy Faith of our honored dead, Perun.

Well done, young comrade.

Walter

Hilaire Belloc

2003-11-22 22:13 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]You're doing a great job defending the Holy Faith of our honored dead, Perun.

Well done, young comrade.

Walter[/QUOTE]

Thank you! Although I must admit, my studies into apologetics is only a year old. :cheers: