Lots
of folks are making a big to do over AG William Barr’s speech at the University
of Notre Dame about religion in the [u]nited States, some of which is actually
pretty good:
But,
as Mr Barr is a long-time, hard-crusted operative of the deep state, we have
our doubts about just how much of this speech he actually subscribes to:
So
why give it? Dr Joseph Farrell offers an
important clue in a quote from Alastair Crooke of The Financial Times. Mr Crooke says that one of the factions of
the Elite in the States wants to proceed with a ‘moral rearmament’ of the
masses to keep the worldwide American Supremacist Project trucking along:
However,
their methods of going about that, by championing religious pluralism or ‘religious
freedom’, though very congenial to Evangelical Protestant ears, will not have
the desired effect. To put it bluntly,
religious freedom is the gateway to moral relativism, to the ‘post-truth’
society. Alexander Solzhenitsyn says it
this way:
In an article entitled
"The Pluralists", Solzhenitsyn wrote: "They [the pluralists]
seem to regard pluralism as somehow the supreme attainment of history, the
supreme intellectual good, the supreme value of modern Western life. This
principle is often formulated as follows: 'the more different opinions, the
better' - the important thing being that no one should seriously insist on the
truth of his own.
"But can pluralism
claim to be a principle valuable in itself, and indeed one of the loftiest? It
is strange that mere plurality should be elevated to such a high status... The
Washington Post once published a letter from an American, responding to my
Harvard speech. 'It is difficult to believe,' he wrote, 'that diversity for its
own sake is the highest aim of mankind. Respect for diversity makes no sense
unless diversity helps us attain some higher goal.'
"Of course, variety
adds colour to life. We yearn for it. We cannot imagine life without it. But if
diversity becomes the highest principle, then there can be no universal human
values, and making one's own values the yardstick of another person's opinions
is ignorant and brutal. If there is no right and wrong, what restraints remain?
If there is no universal basis for it there can be no morality. 'Pluralism' as
a principle degenerates into indifference, superficiality, it spills over into
relativism, into tolerance of the absurd, into a pluralism of errors and lies.
You may show off your ideas, but must say nothing with conviction. To be too
sure that you are right is indecent. So people wander like babes in the wood.
That is why the Western world today is defenceless; paralysed by its inability
any longer to distinguish between true and false positions, between manifest
Good and manifest Evil, by the centrifugal chaos of ideas, by the entropy of
thought. 'Let's have as many views as possible - just as long as they're all
different!' But if a hundred mules all pull different ways the result is no
movement at all.
"In the whole
universal flux there is one truth - God's truth, and, consciously or not, we
all long to draw near to this truth and touch it. A great diversity of opinions
has some sense if we make it our first concern to compare them so as to
discover and renounce our mistakes. To discover the true way of looking at
things, come as close as we can to God's truth, and not just collect as many
'different' views as we can..."
--Quoted in Dr Vladimir
Moss, A Monarchist Theology of Politics, pgs. 69-70, http://www.orthodoxchristianbooks.com/downloads/740_A_MONARCHIST_THEOLOGY_OF_POLITICS.pdf
When
various sects with their conflicting doctrines - Methodists, Roman Catholics,
Christian Scientologists, Southern Baptists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Seventh Day
Adventists, and a host of others - all dwell in the same land, with each
claiming that it is the sole repository of Truth, then, as Mr Solzhenitsyn
says, you get spiritual confusion, then indifference, and ultimately death (and
sometimes religious wars during the stage of confusion, as happened between the
States of the South and the States of the North from 1861-5, or between the
various countries of Europe during the Thirty Years War, 1618-48). The history of the States and of Western
Europe have given many proofs of what Mr Solzhenitsyn describes.
Religious
freedom/pluralism does not lead to a Christian culture but undermines it. If a people wishes to live in a certain way,
it must protect and nurture those specific customs and the faith that gives
rise to them. A religious free-for-all
is a death knell to an identifiable, inheritable Christian culture, one that
remains what it is from generation to generation. The Old Testament Church did not put up with
the ‘free exercise of religion’ in Israel by various ‘denominations’ (Korah
with his followers (Numbers 16) and so on). Nor did the New Testament Church. There were many sects that rose up (Judaizers,
Arians, Nestorians, Eutychians, Monothelites, Iconoclasts, Barlaamites, etc.),
but the Orthodox Church anathematized them all in order to safeguard the purity
of the Holy Gospel, and with it the possibility of mankind’s salvation. It is only after the Great Schism in the West,
with the falling away from the Orthodox Faith and the rise of Roman Catholicism
and Protestantism, that the proliferation of sects and denominations has been
pronounced a blessing rather than a curse.
Healthy
societies share a common religion; unhealthy societies are cursed with a
multiplication of faiths. For the sake
of the well-being of the peoples of the States, for the sake of peace and
concord amongst them, until all come to unity in the Orthodox Faith, we ought
to seriously consider establishing one religion (whether Presbyterian,
Episcopalian, etc.) in each town and/or county (or parish in Louisiana). Hold an election and let the highest
vote-getter become the established faith.
This could be revisited every 20 years or so with a new vote. Spilling the blood of those outside the
established faith should not be allowed (although we would fully expect it in
some places where ‘progressives’ or Muslims have the numerical advantage over
Christians), but some level of coercion must be in order to protect it. Adherents of the other faiths can either move
to a place where their beliefs are established, or they can stay with the
understanding that they would have to live their religious life behind closed
doors and be barred from proselytizing.
Violations would be met with warnings and then expulsion.
At
the State level, John C. Calhoun’s idea of the concurrent majority could be
employed to give each denomination an equal voice in political matters. A new assembly could be set up, consisting of
one representative from each of the established religions that existed in the
towns and/or counties of that State.
Each sect would choose one layman (the canons of the Church have always
barred clergy from direct political service) to serve in the new body. All proposed State legislation would have to
receive a unanimous vote from the representatives of this body before it could
become law (or perhaps a supermajority would do (3/4? 4/5?) so that Christian legislation wouldn’t
be stymied by a Wiccan or some other non-Christian representative).
It
has been to the States’ dishonor that they have spread the dangerous innovation
of religious pluralism/freedom around the world (sometimes deliberately for the
express purpose of destabilizing targeted countries). But soon enough, they will themselves
collapse because of the moral rot it has caused in the souls of their peoples
unless they repent.
--
Holy Ælfred the Great, King of England,
South Patron, pray for us sinners at the Souð,
unworthy though we are!
Anathema to the Union!
No comments:
Post a Comment