Let’s Make Some Exceptions to Religious Tolerance

by Ray Thornton

IT HAS BEEN said that the Koran and Sharia Law are incompatible with the Constitution and laws of the United States. Accepting that as a fact, it should also be pointed out that the same is true — in spades — of the Torah, Talmud, and Kol Nidre, all held to be “sacred” by a certain other very powerful and wealthy Middle Eastern group that invaded our nations many years ago. (And we should also remember that the Torah is considered “holy” by all three Middle Eastern faiths).

The America (and, for that matter, the world) of today is very different from that of nearly 400 years ago in which religious tolerance was codified, and later constitutionalised.

It is unlikely that any of the initiators of this religious tolerance had read the Koran, or the Hadith, or the Talmud, or knew about the equal toxicity of of the Torah — or how officials of the early Christian church carefully selected (for their Bible) from early “gospel” writings in order to cement their relationship with, and power under, the Roman Empire under Constantine and later rulers.

After a typical week full of rapes, killings, acts of terror, and numerous other crimes committed by non-White Muslims in Europe, the Jewish-controlled media usually deign to tell us the “real danger” we face as a result of these attacks is the possible rise of “right-wing extremists” to power.

Well, what better examples of what is usually meant by “right-wing extremism” are there than Israel and Islam? — monocultural, undemocratic, and intolerant.

The reaction from our governments all over the West has been to promise new measures against “hate crimes,” including using taxpayers money to pay for “extra protection” for mosques and synagogues. (Never is a moment’s consideration given to putting restrictions of any kind on Jewish power or on Muslim invaders and fanatics, of course.)

But the really cogent question is this: Why are mosques and synagogues targets for attacks in the first place? One reason is that both have well-organised, well-funded, international lobby groups built around them: Any incidents against mosques and synagogues receive a great deal of publicity. (If only the English girls raped and prostituted by Muslims had had such protection: Instead, their communities and families have been torn apart by capitalism that regards them as interchangeable consumers and producers, bourgeois liberalism that forces them to “tolerate” such invaders and exploiters, and bourgeois feminism that wrecks their family structure and encourages British women to ally with their worst enemies.)

Mosques, synagogues, and, to a growing extent, churches, are the physical epicentres of closely-related diseases which are endangering the future of civilised humankind. In these epicentres and their “schools,” millions of children are programmed with lies and superstition, threatened, tortured, and abused.

All humans are born ignorant: Few are born stupid. In the face of the increased knowledge of the real world gained since the superstitions of the Abrahamic religions were codified centuries ago, these superstitions cannot be maintained through reasoned argument. The only way in which humans can be programmed with the superstitious nonsense of these Middle Eastern cults is through social isolation and threats of violence and death. The only way in which threats of violence and death can have any effect is through demonstrations of violence and death frequent enough to force its followers to conform. These religions have violence and death built into their very cores, and the violence is aimed principally at young children. The frequent sexual molestation of children by imams, priests, and rabbis, heinous though it is, is almost lost in the noise of institutionalised brutality and mind manipulation.

One of the few consistent successes of education in Europe has been its secularisation. This is now at odds with Europe’s governments, which are turning at best a sight-impaired eye to the increasing barbarism of Israel and other Middle Eastern states built around decrepit superstitions, while opening Europe’s borders to the population overflows from those very places.

The controlled media constantly repeat allegations of “Islamophobia” and “anti-Semitism” when both were never anything more than inventions of supremacist ideologues, intended to forestall opposition to and provide a smokescreen for their invasion of lands never their own.

When America’s ideas of extreme religious tolerance was framed, there were but a few thousand people in all of North America: There was plenty of room for the followers of even the most bizarre religions to found communities without bothering anyone else. That space has not only been filled, but so has every country in every continent. Is there now ample room for the followers of superstitious claptrap, particularly when this claptrap includes a duty to spread the claptrap far and wide, by force if possible?

Among the mixed messages being sent out by the bourgeois governments of Europe and the US, none is more confused and confusing than their simultaneous condemnation of child abuse while giving special protection to religions which could not exist but for their ritualised and institutionalised emotional, intellectual, and sometimes physical and sexual abuse of children.

The public argument raised in support of this degeneracy (the non-sexual part, at least) is “our parents did it to us; so we must do it to our children.” Yet there is another context in which to see religion — one of which our Roman cousins knew about, and which Edward Gibbon described precisely and eloquently over 200 years ago:

The various modes of worship, which prevailed in the Roman world, were all considered by the people, as equally true; by the philosopher, as equally false; and by the magistrate, as equally useful.

Powerful religious institutions almost always proceed in lockstep with the interests of ruling elites, serving to keep the mass of the people ignorant and docile — from the priestly castes of the Torah and Talmud, through the Roman Empire, feudal Europe, Hindu India, and Islamic caliphates.

Are the much-ballyhooed “Islamophobic” and “anti-Semitic” criticisms — the so-called “attacks” on Islam and Judaism — really a rational, intelligent resistance to degenerate superstition and tyranny?

And what position can we expect the other Abrahamic religion, Christianity, to take in such controversies? So far, its reaction indicates it is more a part of the problem than part of the solution.

* * *

Source: Author