ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Tuesday, November 03, 2015

The First Amendment isn't merely dead

It is outdated, irrelevant, and at this point, civilizationally destructive. John Wright explains:
The First Amendment was never anything but a cease-fire and peace treaty of a Christian v Christian civil war, which was extended, out of Christian charity and and English sense of fairplay and goodsportsmanship, to Jews and other religions.

It was never a suicide pact, never an invitation for socialists at home and soviets or Islamists abroad to overturn our system of protecting our God-given liberties.
The challenge is how to protect some semblance of free speech while strictly limiting, if not banning outright, the exercise of all non-Christian religions in Christendom. This is theoretically possible, as history demonstrates. But as events are rapidly demonstrating, in the current circumstances the latter is going to take precedence over the former.

The age of fairplay and goodsportsmanship is over. You don't have to like it; I certainly don't. Unfortunately, we have no choice but to accept it. And if you can't bring yourself to do so now, don't worry, you will soon enough.

Labels: ,

147 Comments:

Blogger Alexander November 03, 2015 2:18 PM  

Note being glib.

The challenge is how to protect some semblance of free speech while strictly limiting, if not banning outright, the exercise of all non-Christian religions in Christendom.

Why is that a necessary challenge? Why is it in any way necessary to accommodate non-Christians. "The rights of Englishmen" were able to exist contemporaneously with Test Acts and the Act of Settlement.

I have lost an interest in trying to figure out how to accommodate, and I do not see what I have lost in the matter.

Blogger Ron Winkleheimer November 03, 2015 2:20 PM  

The age of fairplay and goodsportsmanship is over.

Brought about by the "we can't descend to their level" scolds.

The Geneva Convention specifically excludes those that don't abide by its rules from its protection for a reason.

Blogger professorastro November 03, 2015 2:26 PM  

Can't we just hang all non-Nation-State actors as pirates again?

Blogger Bastiat's Ghost November 03, 2015 2:27 PM  

It's on like Donkey Kong

Blogger Josh November 03, 2015 2:27 PM  

I don't like it, but it is what it is

Blogger McChuck November 03, 2015 2:42 PM  

Proposed as an intellectual exercise -

1) The United States is a Christian nation. Only Christian citizens, of any creed, may run for or hold public office, whether elective or appointed, at any level of governance.

2) We welcome those of other faiths that are compatible with Christianity. Non-Christians may establish residency in the United States as allowed for by law, but may not obtain citizenship.

3) Islam is specifically noted as being wholly incompatible with Christianity, and its practice and proselytization are hereby banned, the punishment for which is death or deportation to a majority Mohammedan country.

4) Communism, Socialism, and all other forms of Marxism are hereby recognized as foul religions, and are incompatible with Christianity and the American way of life. The practice and proselytization of these foul religions are hereby banned, the punishment for which shall be death.

5) The Federal government may make no law or regulation favoring any Christian creed over any other, nor may it establish an official national Church.

Blogger rick November 03, 2015 2:42 PM  

There is a scene in the movie Constantine that will always stick with me. In the scene, Constantine goes to his friend to ask a favor in order to defeat the demons he is fighting. His friend, a witch doctor tells him no, and emphasizes that he refuses to break the rules. Constantine screams back at him, "You are the only one still following the damn rules!!! Now let me use your [electric] chair."

I'm finding that those who wish to screw over those who only want to live in peace, don't follow the rules themselves. They expect us to follow the rules and just take it because we have a legal system and we should respect the law. Meanwhile, they f_ck us over, and break every law imaginable to push their agenda.

Indeed, playing by the rules leads to a second place finish.

frenchy

Blogger James Bryant November 03, 2015 2:44 PM  

As a member of a sect of Christianity many people consider a cult I wonder how we can limit Free exercise of religion without setting ourselves up as the next one to be persecuted.

Blogger Rye Bread November 03, 2015 2:44 PM  

I have lost an interest in trying to figure out how to accommodate, and I do not see what I have lost in the matter.

This is the message that we need to convey across our social circles. We gave accommodation the "ole college try", we tried inclusiveness, and we tried tolerance. Our charity has been repaid in the form of ill will, demonetization of our culture, our history, and our peoples. As much as I would like to get along, its simply not possible with the left.

To paraphrase a British diplomat. If they wish to make an enemy of us, let us not disappoint them!

Anonymous smedley butler November 03, 2015 2:50 PM  

Pius IX pointed out the following errors of thought as espoused by liberalism:

"77. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship. -- Allocution "Nemo vestrum," July 26, 1855.

"78. Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship. -- Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852.

"79. Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism. -- Allocution "Nunquam fore," Dec. 15, 1856.

"80. The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.- -Allocution "Jamdudum cernimus," March 18, 1861."

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm

Blogger Weouro November 03, 2015 2:56 PM  

It was always a suicide pact. Its destructiveness was integral from the start. It's just that this didn't play out in society because the overwhelming majority of the population was Christian and didn't follow the destructive principle it contained. Not the case anymore.

Blogger Scott Rassbach November 03, 2015 2:56 PM  

@8

I wonder the same thing. If you restrict the liberties of one class, it's a small step to restricting them for another. You've already granted that restrictions are possible, now you're just arguing about how restricting.

Blogger Laguna Beach Fogey November 03, 2015 2:57 PM  

The age of fairplay and goodsportsmanship is over. You don't have to like it; I certainly don't. Unfortunately, we have no choice but to accept it. And if you can't bring yourself to do so now, don't worry, you will soon enough.

Exactly. Vox, you've been reading my mind again.

We must stop being gentlemen. It's going to get us killed and our civilization destroyed.

Blogger Weouro November 03, 2015 2:58 PM  

"I wonder how we can limit Free exercise of religion without setting ourselves up as the next one to be persecuted."

You can't. Someone will always be "persecuted" or have his "free" exercise restricted.

Blogger Brad Andrews November 03, 2015 3:01 PM  

Everything can and will be taken to an extreme. That doesn't mean you only have the extremes. It means you watch for that trend and do your best to account for it.

Blogger Red Jack November 03, 2015 3:01 PM  

You have changed Vox.

Not saying it is a bad thing.

I have been reading a lot of old political books. Many pointed out that the masonic ideals of the original American Republic would not last long term, for it assumes that people are better than they are.

Reality is a harsh teacher. I fear the West is in for another lesson.

Blogger SS November 03, 2015 3:01 PM  

6. McChuck

Those rules dont matter in the age of churchianity. Lots of people claim to be Christians. Many of them bear no resemblance to one.

Anonymous Soga November 03, 2015 3:03 PM  

@12

Not limiting is what got us into this mess in the first place.

Of course, people don't like being limited. Because then they can't just crap all over the toilet seat as they please.

You may not think you're misusing the toilet, but the people for whom the toilet was invented probably thinks otherwise.

Prove first that you can use the toilet correctly and that the rest of your people can do likewise with minimal training.

Anonymous CrisisEraDynamo November 03, 2015 3:03 PM  

How does this "the 1A is bad" idea square with your earlier statements about GamerGate being about developers making the games they want and players playing the games they want? I get that the principle of free speech is larger than a single amendment, but would you say you've turned against free speech as a whole?

Blogger Hammerli280 November 03, 2015 3:03 PM  

Discussions of the virtues of cultural homogeneity aside, I think the real crux of the problem lies not in freedom of worship, but in the attempts to restrict it by the Enemies of Civilization.

Christians (all denominations), Jews, Buddists, and so on do not try to have the government impose their faith on others. Atheists and Moslems DO try to have their faith (or anti-faith) declared the state religion, and imposed by government force.

And I think that may be the way to frame the argument. We're not attacking freedom of worship, we're defending it from those who would suppress it.

Blogger justaguy November 03, 2015 3:04 PM  

At this point, if we lose the First Amendment, WE lose. We are already a minority. We have already lost control of our education system, our culture, and our philosophy. Why speed up what currently limits the majority totalitarians from placing the rat cages over our heads?

The hope of liberty and people regaining their senses or at least a sense of liberty (do what you want to yourself) in the coming chaos is the slim hope libertarians cling to along with their religion and guns.

Anonymous jdgalt November 03, 2015 3:07 PM  

I can't see any case for restricting all religions except Christianity. For one thing, many of those other faiths are friendly (Jews for instance). For another, once you declare any religion illegal, its followers can simply pretend they are Christians, so you wind up having to reinstitute inquisitions and heresy trials to enforce the ban.

A more sensible and practical approach, IMO, is simply to allow government to declare, on an emergency basis, that certain religions and/or language groups are believed to be harboring dangerous rebels and are therefore to be subject to warrantless random surveillance and infiltration. That ought to be enough to catch any true threat that's out there. Even giving government that much power, though, has caused abuses in the past (the Chicago Weather Underground case, where FBI informants led the group to commit violence that might not have happened otherwise, comes to mind), so the watchers would need to be watched and the whole program reviewed periodically to see if it's doing more harm than good.

Blogger Mr. Bee November 03, 2015 3:10 PM  

Attacking the 1st amendment: Bad tactics. Worse optics. Go after the corrupt media oligarchs. Go after the academics. Your allies are trying to hold the tide back using the first and you're stabbing them in the back. What was it Vox wrote today - whom do you hate most, the enemy or the friend who betrays you?

Anonymous CrisisEraDynamo November 03, 2015 3:10 PM  

@21

Agreed. 1A is pretty much our only chance to reclaim any space at all in the larger culture.

OpenID anonymos-coward November 03, 2015 3:14 PM  

many of those other faiths are friendly (Jews for instance)
Top kek. Literally lol. (Try asking a practicing Jew about Jesus Christ, if you dare.)

Also, having an official religion doesn't mean other religions are illegal. (Example: having an official language doesn't mean speaking other languages is illegal.)

Anonymous Anonymous November 03, 2015 3:14 PM  

I am not a Christian. Where would us anti-Marxist non-believers/virtuous pagans fit in? Anyone familiar with Covington's Northwest novels? Would the religious system implemented there be workable?

As for the current status of the 1st Amendment-- for those of us in Canada/Europe/Australia/New Zealand we don't have anything like it and the Marxists have free reign to destroy the lives of dissidents at will. I do agree a downshift is necessary after we win.

Blogger SS November 03, 2015 3:15 PM  

@21. justaguy

We are also better armed and smarter. Numbers don't always win.

Blogger Weouro November 03, 2015 3:19 PM  

This topic (philosophical liberalism) is Zippy's wheelhouse.

Anonymous karsten November 03, 2015 3:20 PM  

" For one thing, many of those other faiths are friendly (Jews for instance)."

There's no way that anyone could write this with a straight face. Must be intentional parody.

Otherwise, it comes right out of the "War is peace. Freedom is slavery" school of
posing lie as truth.

Blogger Rye Bread November 03, 2015 3:22 PM  

#22

For one thing, many of those other faiths are friendly (Jews for instance).


Are they? I have attended the largest Messianic Jews congregation in the U.S. and they look down on Catholics, Protestants etc etc etc - even though we are part of the larger body of Christ.

It goes down hill from there...

Anonymous Seventh Son November 03, 2015 3:22 PM  

Anyone have a link to the quoted piece, Ilk?

Blogger VD November 03, 2015 3:25 PM  

How does this "the 1A is bad" idea square with your earlier statements about GamerGate being about developers making the games they want and players playing the games they want? I get that the principle of free speech is larger than a single amendment, but would you say you've turned against free speech as a whole?

Free speech was originally intended to protect political speech. It does not cover laws pertinent to religion; even today one cannot freely exercise the legitimate religion of the Aztecs, for example. I'm not saying we should attack the First Amendment, rather, we should use it where we can, but stop respecting something that is observably no longer relevant or in effect.

Blogger Noah B #120 November 03, 2015 3:26 PM  

"At this point, if we lose the First Amendment, WE lose. We are already a minority. We have already lost control of our education system, our culture, and our philosophy."

And yet we are the ones who keep society functioning. Without us, the lights are off within days and people are starving within weeks. The left needs us, but we do not need them.

Speech existed long before the First Amendment and it will exist long after it is forgotten. Even an explicit ban on political speech would not be enough to stop it. And speech is certainly not the only tool that we have.

Anonymous CrisisEraDynamo November 03, 2015 3:33 PM  

@32

stop respecting something that is observably no longer relevant or in effect.

I assume you're referring to freedom of religion because the free political speech aspect of 1A is too essential a tool to throw away.

Blogger Noah B #120 November 03, 2015 3:40 PM  

The First Amendment is no longer relevant as a blanket principle applicable to all. It should be obvious that the left uses the First Amendment to subvert the very freedoms that the Constitution was meant to protect.

A subversive shouldn't be able to hide behind the First Amendment while attacking his country any more than a gunman should be able to hide behind the Second Amendment while carrying out a massacre.

Blogger John Wright November 03, 2015 3:42 PM  

Just for the sake of the record, it is Vox Day who called the First Amendment outdated, irrelevant, and at this point, civilizationally destructive. I would never say such a thing. I was speaking of sculpting out a rather narrow exception in order to return the First Amendment to something more like its original intent, in order, in turn, to allow the government to investigate and prosecute Muslims or Communists for being members of a political party bent on the destruction of our Republic.

I was also speaking of striking the First Amendment out of the hands of the antichristian Left, who have used it as a weapon to desecrate (I mean the word literally, to remove all sacred images) our public spaces.

The Muslims in the Middle Ages would routinely destroy Christian relics and buildings. The Left merely does the same work in the name of their God, Socialism and Social Justice, that the Muslims do in their's, Allah.

I was not speaking of resurrecting the Alien and Sedition Act, or requiring a religious test for public office. Given the political climate of the past 400 years, the Catholics would be the first one such a test would exclude.

Blogger Student in Blue (now with blog) November 03, 2015 3:43 PM  

@CrisisEraDynamo
I assume you're referring to freedom of religion because the free political speech aspect of 1A is too essential a tool to throw away.

Free political speech is barely hanging in there anyway, thanks to feminism being something that cannot (be allowed to be) criticized. Anything in opposition gets yelled down as "hate speech".

Blogger Sam vfm #111 November 03, 2015 3:45 PM  

@20
"Christians (all denominations), Jews, Buddists, and so on do not try to have the government impose their faith on others."

What BS! come to Texas and look at all the restrictions the churches (Baptists mainly) have put on us.
When I was a kid, almost nothing was open on Sunday. We have repealed that, but there are still lots more.

Anonymous Takin' a Look November 03, 2015 3:46 PM  

@ Rye Bread

"It goes downhill from there"

Into a boiling pot of shit and semen.

@Karsten

I know it is frustrating. All the links of fat battle-ax jewess dykes behind modern feminism, or pushing "nice white cat lady syndrome", all the statements from rabbis and state leaders about the other 7 billion people being beast-apes of burden and whores for their use and pleasure....

And the huge overrepresentation in many,many critical areas of our White Western societies....all this, just a mere tip of the iceberg of their perfidy.

Means nothing, absolutely NOTHING to the Cyrus Scofield Christian Cucks for the Red Sea Pedestrians. They get the same tingle down their legs around the $aturday People that SWPL get for the sassy,spunky negress who whips up their faggy coffee at starbucks in their gentrified domains.

Blogger John Wright November 03, 2015 3:46 PM  

"Where would us anti-Marxist non-believers/virtuous pagans fit in?"

As a welcome guest and sojourner. As I said: "...which was extended, out of Christian charity and and English sense of fairplay and goodsportsmanship, to Jews and other religions."

Christianity is the only religion that treats virtuous pagans with respect. We are not the ones who blow up the statues of your heathen gods. We put them in our own art and plays and poetry.

Blogger Jourdan November 03, 2015 3:50 PM  

I don't like the idea, but, on the other hand, we have reached the point where it is the First Amendment law in the U.S. that one is free to own a website containing the most vile porn without any hindrance while one is NOT free to take out a TV ad a week before an election with the message "Don't vote for Senator Green because his record in the environment is wrongheaded,and here's why."

In short, it's been turned on its head anyway.

Blogger Hammerli280 November 03, 2015 3:54 PM  

@36 John Wright

This is why I think a better tactical approach is to mount a counterattack against the Militant Atheists and Moslems for THEIR attempt to violate First Amendment liberties.

If you look at the modern Militant Atheists and mental convert "atheist" or "ACLU" to "Catholic" or "Protestant", what emerges is wholesale religious bigotry. An attempt to transform freedom of worship into atheism as State Anti-Religion. And it's terribly vulnerable to a counterattack on those grounds.

Ditto for the Moslems. The Islamic militants aren't interested in religious tolerance, except as a lever to get themselves installed as the state religion. And, of course, to gain political power. We need to counterattack on both.

This needs to be marketed as self-defense, not aggression. We win support from neutrals that way.

Anonymous CrisisEraDynamo November 03, 2015 3:54 PM  

@37

That's what I mean. The only reason anyone at all can resist the Narrative is the 1A. Get rid of that - and the SJWs would certainly love to - and there is zero protection at all. Condemning 1A is like responding to a terrorist attack with a total ban on gun ownership. It leaves the citizenry completely defenseless.

Likewise with 1A. The protections it confers are simply too precious to throw to the dogs.

Anonymous A.B. Prosper November 03, 2015 3:54 PM  

Christianity isn't in such desperate shape that it needs a campaign of religious cleansing and open war in a desperate attempt to stay relevant . It was never meant for everybody anyway.

What it is a secular immigration crisis that happens to involve Muslims and Africans and other people with low IQ high time preference behaviors. Heck the people that are the symptom the US's immigration crisis are almost entirely Christian.

Now don't me wrong I'm fine with deporting any and all foreigners particularly Muslim ones and most non Whites but is anyone here really up for mass murdering or forcefully converting everyone who isn't Christian?

This makes your side different than the Muslims how exactly?

And note for anyone thinking the answer we are right or God is on our side is the same answer the Muslims give

They outnumber you and are growing faster so if I accepted either, I'd suggest they have a better claim to the title.

Western Christendom and Eastern Christendom is in a population collapse, not one Christian country there has above replacement fertility even the US and actual the growth in Christendom is in groups with either an equal or lower IQ lower IQ than the Muslims .

I'm talking about Western/Eastern Christianity here not African or Latin which are different and while they are Christians it would make little sense to say persecute non Christians than bring in tons of Africans and even more Mestizos

The PEW polls aren't perfectly accurate but they show very slight growth in Evangelical numbers in the US but that's about it.

Overall Christianity has declined in the US by about 10% in the entire population in a 7 year period

http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/

Note this data if I read it correctly seems to show that Evangelicals have often many children but low retention /conversion rates and even the LDS who have large families have little or growth.

Its much worse in Europe where the people basically went from nearly 100% to "not much at all" This should tell Christians that their faith isn't wanted in the developed world.

Anyway none of the Buddhists, Wiccans, Heathens , Asatru Secularists, Hindus , Orthodox Satanists (yes them, they don't believe in God) , or most of the others are harming anyone, society included.

Why bother stirring up the millions

Also a heck of a lot Americans including many who will fight aren't going to go for your default theocracy plan.

So you could win, by mass murder and create a Christian Ummah in the US but its not worth the trouble and its not going to happen in Europe ever. You could easily enough get a "default" Christian assumption as Russia is today but I don't see any of the Pagans or really anyone be bothered so long as they don't cause troubles.

Now And you can't easily force everyone to swallow your ideas to grow. If they reject them and if you are right, God will sort them out. If you are wrong, it won't matter anyway and nothing stops them from living happy, healthy lives. People did for tens of thousands of years before Christendom and can do it again. Won't speak for the afterlife mind you but they don't need Christianity or really any religion to be decent.

However what they do need is closed borders, no Muslims and homogeneity






The media is its own thing, its not betraying common principles since the people there don't share them with you. They aren't obliged to provide you or society with anything you want and if you don't like the swill they are serving, don't watch it. You have plenty of options anyway.

That's something decent people and hippies alike can agree on.

Blogger Alexander November 03, 2015 3:55 PM  

It ought be noted that The Rights of Englishman were the rights of Englishman. Not every Hans, Pierre, nor Pedro and certainly not Abdul, Apu, nor Li.

And really, it's not like we're living in a time of great uncensorship of speech and assembly, and we're going to have to give something up: we're just rearranging what side get to wear the boots. Our enemies have already declared that we cannot live in a bootless society.

Blogger Hammerli280 November 03, 2015 3:57 PM  

@38 Sam:

Have they stuffed your wife or girlfriend into a bag? Forbidden you to worship as you please? Perspective, please.

Anonymous Soga November 03, 2015 3:57 PM  

When I was a kid, almost nothing was open on Sunday. We have repealed that, but there are still lots more.

There's a small price for you to pay to live in such a great society. Seriously, your number one complaint about Christians is that we don't allow stores to open on Sunday?

When the alternative, when entryists like you have their ways, pretty much is China?

Blogger Noah B #120 November 03, 2015 3:58 PM  

"When I was a kid, almost nothing was open on Sunday. We have repealed that, but there are still lots more."

dh should hear that story. And he thought he had it rough in his youth.

Blogger SciVo November 03, 2015 4:03 PM  

jdgalt @22: For one thing, many of those other faiths are friendly (Jews for instance).

We want them to live in safety and peace; they want our women and children to be afraid to walk the streets. That is not a healthy, stable, reciprocal relationship.

Anonymous DT November 03, 2015 4:07 PM  

We must now consider briefly liberty of speech, and liberty of the press. It is hardly necessary to say that there can be no such right as this, if it be not used in moderation, and if it pass beyond the bounds and end of all true liberty. For right is a moral power which -- as We have before said and must again and again repeat -- it is absurd to suppose that nature has accorded indifferently to truth and falsehood, to justice and injustice. Men have a right freely and prudently to propagate throughout the State what things soever are true and honorable, so that as many as possible may possess them; but Lying opinions, of which no mental plague is greater, and vices which corrupt the heart and moral life, should be diligently repressed by public authority, lest they insidiously work the ruin of the State. The excesses of an unbridled intellect, which unfailingly end in the oppression of the untutored multitude, are no less rightly controlled by the authority of the law than are the injuries inflicted by violence upon the weak.” ~Pope Leo XIII(Encyclical letter Libertas June 2, 1888)

OpenID crash November 03, 2015 4:09 PM  

I'm an agnostic who appreciates the obvious value religion brings to people's lives. I'd probably have led a better life if I had it in my life, and I am a little sad I came to that realization so late in my life.

So I have to ask, How do you define Christian ? and are you willing to do what will be needed to implement this ?

If Mormonism isn't Christianity will you forcibly convert Deseret or have them secede ? Unitarians ? Ultra reformed Anglicans ? Same for Hawaii and any other part of the country deemed non Christian ? Would each area of the country get its own definition ?

Anonymous CrisisEraDynamo November 03, 2015 4:13 PM  

We're just rearranging what side get to wear the boots. Our enemies have already declared that we cannot live in a bootless society.

Except our side is not wearing the boots. Doing away with 1A would make carving out space for traditional ways of life harder, not easier. It's one thing to tit-for-tat SJWs by calling out their immorality or contacting their employers; it's quite another to make it easier to place those who question the ruling Narrative behind bars.

By getting rid of 1A and making siding with non-SJW thinking a crime, it becomes far harder to spread the word and encourage resistance.

Blogger dc.sunsets November 03, 2015 4:19 PM  

The 1st amendment has been a dead letter from Day 1. The USA has always had a state-established religion, and while the religion has changes a little here and there over the 2+ centuries, it is still recognizably Unitarian.

The goal has always been establishing the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth. Americans were always free to believe anything they wanted and say anything they wanted as long as they didn't utter heresies in the Cathedral.

We do love our little imaginary liberties, however, just as a fish feels free to leave the water right up until the lake evaporates during a drought.

Blogger Alexander November 03, 2015 4:21 PM  

I don't want to get rid of 1A. I do want it contracted to explicitly state what it always was: an understanding that Catholics would accept Protestants would accept Quakers, not that Mohammedans could waltz up and start demanding a ban on porkchops in public schools.

Or that Congress shall make no law... is exactly that. Congress. Congress could not promote Maryland's Catholics over Pennsylvania Quakers, but those states could do whatever they damn well pleased.

Likewise, freedom of speech will be curtailed, it's just a question of whether it will be curtailed while we're sane and can appreciate the suicide nature of allowing academia to foster a fifth column and take steps to restrict it, or whether it will be curtailed in the heat of war, or whether it will be thrown out entirely by our conquerors.

Blogger Nate November 03, 2015 4:24 PM  

you don't have to ban all non-christians. You just have to acknowledge that Islam is not a religion. It is a collective political ideology which is incompatible with western civilization and self determination.

Anonymous Nxx November 03, 2015 4:29 PM  

SINCE good guys finish last.

SINCE the object of war is victory.

IT FOLLOWS: in war good guys are a hindrance

VFM#451

Anonymous Big Bill November 03, 2015 4:30 PM  

All a modern day Hitler has to do is say he receives his orders from Thor and Odin.

Poof! He is now the leader of an exempt "religion"!

His modern-day Nazi meeting halls are now tax-exempt churches where tax-exempt preachers harangue the crowds about a world-wide Fourth Reich in which Odinists (with the proper blood) are God's chosen ones and all the non-Odinists exist only at sufferance.

Then again, maybe not: Mohammed beat him to the punch.

Blogger Noah B #120 November 03, 2015 4:30 PM  

"Same for Hawaii and any other part of the country deemed non Christian ?"

Perhaps I'm uninformed or just dangerously naive, but I'm not seeing the Hawaiian threat as terribly pressing. Marxists and muslims, on the other hand...

An imperfect solution today is better than a perfect solution in the indefinite future. We need to address the imminent threats now and allow ourselves some time to find a final solution to the Hawaiian problem.

Blogger Sam vfm #111 November 03, 2015 4:35 PM  

@46 This in response to your claim in @20 "Christians (all denominations), Jews, Buddists, and so on do not try to have the government impose their faith on others."

They most certainly do. True, the examples I gave are minor, but they prove my point.

Blogger Bluntobj Winz November 03, 2015 4:35 PM  

I think sometimes that John Wright is channeling the spirit of Thomas Jefferson. That essay left me speechless in admiration.

Blogger Chris Ritchie November 03, 2015 4:44 PM  

Haven't had a chance to read through the comments yet, but I'm extremely grateful someone is finally saying this out loud, in plain English, no pun intended.

As I was growing up, it was never clear to me why the founding fathers, even if they were all just Deists, would want freedom of speech and religion for non-Christian religions. The Muslims were called the Barbary Pirates then, and I can't imagine our leaders wanting to include them as part of our society and under our free speech umbrella. I always understood freedom of religion to mean freedom from Christian sectarianism. We didn't want the Anabaptists ruling over the Presbyterians and vice versa they never meant to accommodate the distasteful elements of other religions - so called. Right?

Blogger Jeffrey Quick November 03, 2015 4:47 PM  

#38 "When I was a kid, almost nothing was open on Sunday."
Ditto. We got on fine. We had to exercise FORETHOUGHT, a fitting thing to do to prepare for the Lord's Day.

Blogger praetorian November 03, 2015 4:50 PM  

Discussions of the virtues of cultural homogeneity aside

"Discussions of the spurting gash in your neck aside, I'm concerned about the shape your fingernails are in..."

Blogger RobertT November 03, 2015 4:53 PM  

This is a very heartwarming post.

Blogger Dominic Saltarelli November 03, 2015 4:54 PM  

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

Blogger Harry Spitz November 03, 2015 4:54 PM  

Much as I like the idea of a Christian realm, before you overturn the First Amendment and its stance on establishment of a State Religion, you first need a Christiandom. Even in countries where monarchs are allegedy "Defenders of the Faith," enthusiasm for Christianity is at an all time low. Maybe, somehow, if Christianity could be seen as the Champion of the West, and protector of its freedom and culture? But folks don't even seem to be roused to defend these.

Blogger pyrrhus November 03, 2015 4:54 PM  

For one thing, many of those other faiths are friendly (Jews for instance).

And that's why these "friends" demand and control a narrative that is destroying the country...

Blogger Chris Ritchie November 03, 2015 4:55 PM  

1) The United States is a Christian nation. Only Christian citizens, of any creed, may run for or hold public office, whether elective or appointed, at any level of governance.

That exact sentiment used to exist in many early state constitutions. I haven't researched enough why it started being removed, but there was a specific Christian religious test to hold state office. Not at federal level, but what wasn't at the Federal level was handled by the states.

Blogger Noah B #120 November 03, 2015 4:57 PM  

"I haven't researched enough why it started being removed, but there was a specific Christian religious test to hold state office."

Me either, but I strongly suspect it coincided with the rise of Marxism.

Blogger S1AL November 03, 2015 5:00 PM  

The First Amendment, in its original incarnation, is no longer a functional part of United States law. What remains is a mockery.

Blogger pyrrhus November 03, 2015 5:01 PM  

What the 1st Amendment actually says is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" It was intended not to disturb the existing State religions, eight States having official religions at the time--Congress was to stay out of the subject. SCOTUS leftists turned this into a ban on free exercise in public places, and explicit protection of previously outlawed religions, like Islam and Wicca.

Blogger Hammerli280 November 03, 2015 5:19 PM  

@68 Chris Ritchie:

The 14th Amendment made the Bill of Right applicable to the states. This included the portion of the 1st Amendment prohibiting the establishment of a state religion. IIRC, some states DID have a state religion up to that point.

Blogger B.J. November 03, 2015 5:21 PM  

With Islam, it's simple to get rid of them within the framework of the constitution, as long as you are willing to *actually enforce* it.

Christian religions made a good-faith agreement to set aside their warlike dogma out of mutual respect and cooperation. Muslims have not done so, and in fact openly reject and mock any concept of religious freedom. Hence, those who do not abide by the rules are not protected by them.

Call upon every Islamic org in the country to reject any aspects of the Koran incompatible with Constitutional values (i.e. most of them). Any which refuse to do so are declared null and void as a recognized religion. This would also have the beneficial side effect of spurring Muslims into a violent rage, allowing their numbers to be culled. Once they lose a solid level of their population, they'll be willing to deal. But the price of freedom is constant vigilance.

Anonymous Nxx November 03, 2015 5:30 PM  

It really should be pointed out that we do not have free speech to begin with. The 1A only protects speech from government interference.

When private organizations persecute you for donating $100 to prop 8 until they force you to close your business, you don't have free speech.

We have partial free speech, not free speech.

Private organizations that systematically engage in economic strangulation of dissidents are perfectly legal, fully operational and busy grinding down dissidents.

The real issue is: Why is private harassment of free speech even allowed? How is it a free country when people are regularly persecuted for their opinions?

VFM#451

Blogger Phillip George November 03, 2015 5:36 PM  

A lot are missing the point. Islam is religious and political legal speech. Full stop. You can't unscramble an omelette into religious and secular. Bury the delusion.

Two: Rabbinical Judaism and Islam are overtly anti Christ. So the eternal question is "Whom shall you serve?" Judaism's attack on Christianity has been far more effective than Islam's.

Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck - a lie is a lie is a lie. Don't fund it, accommodate it, endorse it. It has no "rights". Get that shit out. Not one cent of public funding.

The flag either flies for Jesus or it doesn't. There is no ifs buts or maybes. If it isn't flying for Jesus it is coming down. The early 'fathers'/ masonic do gooders - had one utopian delusion by which they shot their feet off. Jesus. It's in the name.

Science, religion, history, politics and law, philosophy. WORD of God Truth revolves around what He said, does and is. Jesus.

Blogger Kirk Parker November 03, 2015 5:40 PM  

@44,

"[Muslims] ... are growing faster "

On a worldwide basis, that is not at all true.

Anonymous Big Bill November 03, 2015 5:42 PM  

Don't eliminate the First Amendment, just roll First Amendment law back to 1925.

As originally conceived, drafted and approved, the First Amendment applied only to the Federal Government, not the state governments. Each state could, if it so chose, make religious qualifications for office, or ban particular forms of speech.

That all changed starting in 1925 with Gitlow v. New York. In that decision, the USSC forced the states to follow the First Amendment. Later USSC decisions expanded this initial usurpation of States Rights.

Now, almost every provision of the Bill of Rights (as interpreted by the USSC) is forced on every state.

The Europeans are undergoing a compressed version of this same usurpation/sovereignty destruction process, and that is why they are becoming enraged.

Germans are different than Swedes are different that Serbs, are different than Italians, are different than Spaniards are different than Englishmen.

Likewise, Wisconsin is different that Alabama is different that Massachusetts is different than Idaho.

Just reverse the power of the Feds and the EU to impose "rights" on all the individual states that comprise their unions and much of the stress and rage will disappear.

People are different. Nations are different. States are different. This differentness needs to be repected, honored and celebrated, not destroyed.

We are engaged in horrible wars around the world trying to ram liberal Western values (aka "Universal Human Rights") down everyone's throat, and millions are dying because of it. It is time to reverse the process and devolve power onto smaller polities more responsible to their own people.

Blogger ray November 03, 2015 6:00 PM  

'But as events are rapidly demonstrating, in the current circumstances the latter is going to take precedence over the former.'


Right. The Free Speech Movement in America didn't produce a reformed and revitalized Christianity. It helped produce the mass-censorship, moral supremacism, and outright deceits of modern Leftism. The FSM aided anti-Christianity, just as women taking over the churches resulted in Christianity without Christ, marriage without actual commitment, so forth.

Indeed, the English and some Continental nations practiced 'good sportsmanship' based on their innate embrace of justice. Wars of previous centuries often had strict rules for engagement, capture of officers/enlisted, surrender terms and restraints, and so forth. Others here are more qualified to address this topic.

As Western culture modernly discarded, demeaned, and disenfranchised the Evil White Christian Males who built (hello Obie!) those systems of fair-play, we witness the corruption and destruction of not only our nations, but of all principles of fairness, justice, civility, etc. In their place, 'social' justice is forced upon us, so that all things, including the most personal elements, are now merely political tools and acts. Instead of equity, we get Equality. Instead of justice, we get sexual/racial levelling and re-distribution. Etc.


Blogger Ostar November 03, 2015 6:01 PM  

Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) is based on the Koran and other Islamic sources - i.e., Sharia. No Muslim can reject Sharia law therefore, because it as Allah has willed it. They only tolerate non-Islamic law until they can overthrow it.

You'll never hear a Muslim admit this because of the principle of Taqiyya - meaning lying to unbelievers to help defeat them is NOT a sin in Islam. The First Amendment to them is simply a convenient cover for their lies.

Islam is dedicated to the overthrow of all non-Islamic nations. It should be outlawed in the US and any other nation that wants to stay non-Islamic in the future. Because once Muslims reach a critical mass in a state, they become openly committed to the violent overthrow of that state.

Blogger ray November 03, 2015 6:19 PM  

# 11 -- Yeah. Even before the nation's official founding, the seeds of the rot were planted, by various groups and individuals. For them, modern America is essentially what they hoped-for, and envisioned. Babylon West, the new Masonic MegaState of post-Enlightenment liberte, egalite, fraternite. They took their time, and their agenda has been realized, to large degree.

It was the common, father-led, nuclear family of CHRISTIANS that held off these infiltrations and onslaughts for a couple centuries. (Seneca Falls, recall, took place more than a century-and-a-half ago. These rebellions aren't new.)

Once females were enfranchised, and mass-com arrived, the center could not possibly hold, as it's not even a numeric majority anymore. It's replaced by rule under tyrant 'minorities', the largest bloc of which is the female vote (and of course female purchasing-power, which drives the consumerist and governmental engines).

Blogger Desiderius November 03, 2015 6:22 PM  

"You've already granted that restrictions are possible, now you're just arguing about how restricting."

That grant is not in your power. Open restriction is upon you, far more severe de facto than de jure. The question tactically is how to respond once one has recognized that not only are restrictions possible, they are virulently manifest; strategically how to gain the initiative in such an environment.

I'm sympathetic with Wright's take.

Blogger Robert What? November 03, 2015 7:07 PM  

It's really most sincerely dead.

Blogger TheRedSkull November 03, 2015 7:07 PM  

The population of the United States in 1789 when the Constitution was ratified was around 4 million. It is now 319 million. The system has not successfully scaled two orders of magnitude, nor has it avoided the effects of 226 years on the Glubbian clock. Ergo, the Constitution is defunct.

The US is now a post-Christian progressive multi-racial Keynesian socialist anarcho-tyrannical declining empire. It bears no resemblance to its founding. Any equivalence between the 1st Amendment of 1789 and the 1st Amendment of 2015 is rhetorical. Vox's posts alerts clueless, outmaneuvered 'Murica patriots to this fact.

The salient immediate danger is that this declining empire's insanity will precipitate nuclear WWIII after the Fed collapses. Curtailment of civil liberties is both an ongoing reality and a future inevitability. Such measures are more than justified; one can only hope they are used to impede rather than accelerate the Left Singularity. Unfortunately, experience and all rational predictive models suggest otherwise.

VD's move is bold and suggests an understanding of danger that moderates lack. Heavens, Mustard Gas? That would be unethical! My, I'm itchy. [Cut to unending screams.]

Blogger dfordoom November 03, 2015 7:21 PM  

Indeed, the English and some Continental nations practiced 'good sportsmanship' based on their innate embrace of justice. Wars of previous centuries often had strict rules for engagement, capture of officers/enlisted, surrender terms and restraints, and so forth.

The disappearance of the concept of civilised limited warfare seemed to coincide with the rise of democracy.

Blogger Doom November 03, 2015 7:42 PM  

One way or another, that is correct. It depends on if resistance to those things you discuss happens fast enough to stop the absolute corruption of our politics, turning it into a tyranny or not. Which depends on men choosing to surrender their freedom or not, as a majority... women and minorities don't really matter. Either way, those rights are at an end. It is merely a matter of who will say which rights are allowed and for whom.

The good old days were only ever good, in so much as they were good, because they were much more strictly limited. You didn't, really, have a right to an opinion. It is more just that no opinion would, generally, be forced upon you. Freedom is very tricky and very slim. Further, most don't want it, for with it comes responsibility. Freedom, to a greater degree, has to be imposed. Only men will do that, freedom binds women and minorities like nothing else... to a shame of theirs of sorts. Even some men tread it lightly. For failure is not only an option, it is a probability, soon or late.

Freedom of speech needs to be tended, minus some weeds. It can't be, for the most part, allowed to be armed against itself. Academia will be the first target. Though it has already completely abjured this right, so the removal of rights in it will actually be through the reinstallation of those rights to those in and around those institutions. Odd how what is black is actually white and the reverse.

Blogger Derek Kite November 03, 2015 7:48 PM  

In conversation with leftists by the third sentence they say something barking mad. You just hit the third sentence.

This discussion board would be shut down or under constant sanction without the first amendment. That is why Europe is in such a mess; there has been zero debate let alone someone representing the anti immigration constituency. It is considered hate speech, and look what it looks like now.

Europe has also has state religions. Craven useless twits, and utterly incapable of withstanding the flood because there is nothing there. The first amendment protected US religious scene is among the most vigorous simply because they have to be relevant or they don't exist. I lived in Quebec as the political Catholicism was being dismantled. Good riddance was the reaction. Listening to sjw's has an uncanny resemblance to the enforced ignorance, preening thuggery and effort to keep people stupid and poor that characterized Quebec education and social structures. When it was gone the people rejoiced. There is a wholesale rejection of anything Catholic, highest abortion rate, lowest marriage taste because of the lazy monopoly of a power that had no need to justify itself and could use state thuggery to get it's way.

The US Catholic education is far different from the Catholic school districts in Quebec, for the simple reason that no one would willingly send their kids there for an education.

You really don't know how good you have it.

Blogger Azimus November 03, 2015 7:57 PM  

John Wright:
It was never a suicide pact, never an invitation for socialists at home and soviets or Islamists abroad to overturn our system of protecting our God-given liberties.


How can you explain this to, and convince an ordinary person? You know, the "Man on the Street" folks. Further, how can you convince them that the First Amendment is both bad (current perversion) and good (original intent) without convincing them to burn it to the ground? I say it is impossible. It is Pandora's box - the very fire that consumes the dross destroys the gold.

Blogger TheRedSkull November 03, 2015 7:59 PM  

Not that it matters, since we're all dead anyway, but I'll explain further.

The original 1st Amendment permitted a multiplicity of state churches. The SJW 1st Amendment forbids that, instead effectively mandating one federal SJW state church.

Rule by warriors prevents Left Singularity via state churches and discrimination keeping leftists from the halls of power. Rule by non-hereditary priests devolves into Pharasaical holiness competition spiraling into Left Singularity. E.g. the Khmer Rouge killed everyone in Cambodia smart enough to be a Communist, including and especially the Khmer Rouge.

The only reason the USSR didn't already nuke the world is that the worst of their Left Singularity was already over with Lenin and Stalin, and they STILL almost did it at least twice.

The US has been ruled by SJWs since at least the Civil War. SJWs always double down. They have a big red button.

WHAT MAKES YOU THINK THEY WON'T USE IT?

This has been bleak so I'll close with a joke:

No Fate.

Humor explanation: The idea that humanity's foe is a perfectly rational AI superintelligence is absurdly optimistic.

OpenID tz November 03, 2015 8:04 PM  

1. The Constitution itself has a provision specifying Capital Punishment for Treason. It merely requires two witnesses. I have no trouble stringing up traitors on the nearest utility poles AFTER they are adjudicated.

2. Approximately half the Christians I've encountered would say Vox himself is NOT a Christian since he does not adhere strictly to the Nicean Creed (like Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, and some others). Some include or exclude Catholics. Muslims can lie and say they are Christians (like the Uzbeck terrorist, in Idaho IIRC). But this illustrates the problem - if it is a fundamental right, it cannot be abridged, at least in the form of prior restraint absent some finding of misuse (true threats, fighting words, incitements, slander). If it is to be reserved to "Christians", neither Vox nor Mr. Wright would be allowed to speak. Compare Women's suffrage.

3. The Constitution is derivative. The foundation is Natural Law (See Lewis, Abolition of Man). Natural law covers lying, theft, and violence strictly and would insist religions adhere to these even more fundamental principles. Conversely, freedom of conscience, and thus speaking also derives. In that it is more a negative - Government cannot restrict or compel acts or words which do not harm.

4. Man is fallen. It is hard enough avoiding sin during peacetime. Sinners may oppress or kill other sinners with a "kill 'em all and let God sort them out" not realizing that all involved will end up in hell. Fear makes people sin in order to create the illusion of security. Such is dishonest. If you wish to be safe from the terrorists, simply ask the devil using a signed contract written in your blood and you will live a long, safe life. Eternity will not be as pleasant. When you advocate grave sin you are doing the same thing, so it ought not bother you to make it official and clear.

5. Wisdom from "A man for all seasons":
Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
(endquote) The legal thicket slows evil of all forms, including our own sins. Cutting that down, including the 1st amendment, will mean some devil will destroy us. Look at the French Revolution. Liberty, Equality, Fraternity. The reign of terror. The Guillotine. The US Founding Fathers weren't as "enlightened". They thought from Jeremiah "The heart of man is wicked, who can know it".

Blogger dfordoom November 03, 2015 8:05 PM  

@Nxx

The real issue is: Why is private harassment of free speech even allowed? How is it a free country when people are regularly persecuted for their opinions?

I totally agree. The US government doesn't need to impose censorship. Private corporations will do the job for them, and do it more effectively. And corporate censorship is more dangerous because it's more insidious. Anyone who believes the First Amendment will guarantee their right to free speech hasn't been paying attention.

OpenID tz November 03, 2015 8:18 PM  

http://personalliberty.com/shredding-constitution-literally-appease-student-social-justice-warriors/

Or appease those on the other end

Blogger TheRedSkull November 03, 2015 8:19 PM  

Yes, sure. Let's keep the noble sounding parts of the Corporate Code of Conduct as they're used to winnow us like chaff.

It's a great argument. All law is man's law, not the Devil's, so don't cut down laws, because then the Devil will get you.

Well this isn't stable merry England, and those laws aren't men's. So either saw through the bars of your cage or stay put like a good little snack.

We are no longer pursuing the Devil. The Devil is pursuing us. Reverse the analogy.

Blogger Cail Corishev November 03, 2015 8:27 PM  

Pius IX pointed out the following errors of thought as espoused by liberalism:

Just to make it clear: those quoted ideas about liberalism, the Church deferring to secular states, and unlimited freedom of religion are from the Syllabus of Errors: Pius IX was condemning them.

Blogger VD November 03, 2015 8:30 PM  

Approximately half the Christians I've encountered would say Vox himself is NOT a Christian since he does not adhere strictly to the Nicean Creed (like Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, and some others).

Correction: I do hold to the Nicene Creed. The correct and original one. I do not hold to the Constantine-imposed creed that is often erroneously called the Nicene Creed but is actually the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed promulgated 56 years later.

Blogger Cail Corishev November 03, 2015 8:34 PM  

Constantine screams back at him, "You are the only one still following the damn rules!!! Now let me use your [electric] chair."

Papa Midnight is a perfect moderate, isn't he? His posture of non-involvement has him aiding the Enemy because he doesn't know what's really going on. He only helps John once he's convinced the other side is cheating his precious "balance," and then only in a very minimal way.

Blogger Were-Puppy November 03, 2015 8:35 PM  

@89 tz
@1 The Constitution itself has a provision specifying Capital Punishment for Treason. It merely requires two witnesses. I have no trouble stringing up traitors on the nearest utility poles AFTER they are adjudicated.
---

This would solve many of these problems.

Blogger Groot November 03, 2015 8:58 PM  

Discard the First Amendment, and this site would be the first to go.

@86. Derek Kite:
"preening thuggery"

That's a nicely-turned phrase.

Blogger Oliver Shank November 03, 2015 9:00 PM  

Well...perhaps. The impression I get reading history of the time is that the founding fathers thought that religion, perhaps 'real' religion, was close to the Bible: Christianity and Judaism. I remember that the local Jews were concerned, and received a reply with reassurance from George Washington. My opinion is that the rest of it would confidently be classified as pagan beliefs or some such. Certainly there are differences between the religion of the bible and the faith of the Thuggee, or of Cuahtemoc's people and a number of others are incompatible with Christianity, and their practice would not have been permitted.

Blogger Nate November 03, 2015 9:11 PM  

I prefer the Apostles Creed to either.

Blogger Alexandros November 03, 2015 9:15 PM  

@94. What differences are there in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan creed that you do not adhere to?

Blogger Cail Corishev November 03, 2015 9:17 PM  

" For one thing, many of those other faiths are friendly (Jews for instance)."

There's no way that anyone could write this with a straight face. Must be intentional parody.


Nah, plenty of people honestly believe that's true. All it requires is that you be ignorant of the first 19 centuries or so of Christianity, and not paying too close attention now either.

Blogger praetorian November 03, 2015 9:21 PM  

The 14th Amendment made the Bill of Right applicable to the states.

No, it didn't. It would have said that, if it had.

This sort of rot set in later.

Anonymous Nietzsche's Ghost November 03, 2015 9:45 PM  

The challenge is how to protect some semblance of free speech while strictly limiting, if not banning outright, the exercise of all non-Christian religions in Christendom.

Pussy :)

No better than Scalzi...

Blogger Joshua_D November 03, 2015 10:29 PM  

87. Azimus November 03, 2015 7:57 PM

John Wright:
It was never a suicide pact, never an invitation for socialists at home and soviets or Islamists abroad to overturn our system of protecting our God-given liberties.


How can you explain this to, and convince an ordinary person? You know, the "Man on the Street" folks. Further, how can you convince them that the First Amendment is both bad (current perversion) and good (original intent) without convincing them to burn it to the ground? I say it is impossible. It is Pandora's box - the very fire that consumes the dross destroys the gold.


I would start by asking you friends, "Do you want to live in Mexico?" "Do you want to live in Afghanistan?" "Do you want to live under Sharia Law?"

Anonymous Trimegistus November 03, 2015 10:45 PM  

All of this is like arguing about how many elephants a pixie can carry to Mars. We're not in a position to alter the Constitution, or reverse century-old SCOTUS decisions. We're not even in a position to get the government to actually enforce and obey existing laws. Hell, we're barely able to keep transvestite perverts out of the girls' bathroom!

This will not be quick or easy. We have to fight every inch of the way. Do your part. Don't like Republican candidates? Fine -- get involved, then. Do the work. Then you'll have influence, first within your county party organization, then maybe at state level.

Don't like the bias in schools? Fine. Do the work. Join your local schools committee and make your voice heard. Hell, get a job teaching. If nothing else you can learn where the bodies are buried and maybe drop a dime on your local Teachers' Union boss.

Don't like the bias in media? Do the work. Start your own local news blog. Shoot your own video. Get your own voice heard.

Work is power (over time). If you don't do the work, you have no power. Letting someone else do the work gives them the power. Why are we choking in bureaucracy? Because we didn't want to do the work. How did SJWs get so powerful? They did the work. Hell, even within SF fandom, how did they take over? They showed up and did the work.

Anonymous TheVillageIdiot(Ret.) November 03, 2015 10:49 PM  

James Madison, the acknowledged father of the Constitution, explained in Federalist Paper No. 45:
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. ... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State."
#SecessionNow
looks like we're goin' need us a code of conduct for anyone who wants to live in
any of the first world civilized white Christian societies of the northern hemisphere and their first world economies, especially America
DannyR

Blogger Desiderius November 03, 2015 11:02 PM  

Tri,

"Hell, get a job teaching."

I'll get right on that, just as soon as I man up and marry those sluts.

You have no idea of the facts on the ground.

Anonymous Frank Brady November 03, 2015 11:03 PM  

Vox, your thesis is shockingly irrational and its assumptions pose an existential threat to human liberty. That you, of all people, would advance such concepts is stunning.

Blogger Desiderius November 03, 2015 11:05 PM  

"I prefer the Apostles Creed to either."

Likewise.

Recently bowdlerized by SJWs in the mainline, BTW.

Blogger Desiderius November 03, 2015 11:11 PM  

Frank,

"That you, of all people, would advance such concepts is stunning."

Please. He's a provocateur; it's what he does. At the very least, he makes those of us who've grown lazy in our defense of liberty snap to and get our arguments in order.

Blogger praetorian November 03, 2015 11:46 PM  

Your thesis is shockingly irrational

Can you demonstrate this? Or, by "irrational" do you mean "something that I don't like"?

Vox is many things, but irrational is not one of those things that he is.

OpenID Jack Amok November 04, 2015 12:13 AM  

The challenge is how to protect some semblance of free speech while strictly limiting, if not banning outright, the exercise of all non-Christian religions in Christendom.

Sorry I'm late to the party, but really, the answer here to too easy and I'm dissapointed it wasn't articulated within the first few comments.

We don't need to eliminate the 1st Ammendment, we need to enforce it good and hard. It prohibits the government from establishing a relgion. TheRedSkull already pointed out that what's happening today is the FedGov establishing the Federal Church of the SJW. Eliminate that and all the other problems mostly take care of themselves.

If the federal and state governments weren't directly supporting the church of leftism (including teaching it's doctrines at taxpayer expense in taxpayer-funded elementary, middle, and secondary-churches across the land) how many problems would just... be taken care of on a case-by-case basis?

Blogger SciVo November 04, 2015 12:38 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Anonymous Toby Temple November 04, 2015 12:41 AM  

For those who are wondering what Vox meant by the original Nicene Creed.

It is the Nicene Creed of 325, not the one from 381.

Blogger rho November 04, 2015 2:18 AM  

If the goal was to provoke discussion, leading with "the First Amendment is dead, dated and dangerous" worked a treat. It certainly provoked a few folks to let their inner despot stroll around in the open air for a bit.

I'm not sure why the First Amendment got so much shade thrown its way, though. It's not a suicide pact, sure, but it also isn't a double-secret Christian handshake. You could probably fill a shelf of books on what the First Amendment is not. We should probably concern ourselves with what it is.

Plain reading of the First Amendment isn't all that complicated. Congress cannot pass laws that: tell you who or whether to worship; tell you when you can or cannot tell them to suck eggs in person or in print or; forbid people from pushing a candle through a paper plate and chanting slogans in the National Mall.

The First Amendment has been somewhat bruised over the years since men without mental disorders wore wigs, but I'm not so sure that it's the First Amendment's fault for Islamism, SJWism, or disco. It's kinda like blaming backgammon rules because you can't use your Pokemon cards. I think this is a category error.

Blogger Raziel Walker November 04, 2015 2:48 AM  

Religion is one of the few things where I disagree with VD.
Christiany ruled supreme in Europe for a thousand years. It was called the dark ages. A time of repression and persecution of ideas that didn't fit contemporary worldview.

A nation based on christianity is just as bad as one based on sharia law.

Blogger CM November 04, 2015 3:49 AM  

From reading the 325 version of the NC, I'm gathering there are 2 main differences between the two:

1) 325 version has the explicit condemnation of anyone who disagrees with the Trinitarian God outlined in all 3 creeds...

2) 381 version has a pronouncement of faith in the hierarchical ordination process that predominantly exists in Catholic and liturgical denominations and is limited in many of the protestant churches.

Is that it?

@ Raziel Walker -

You should get with the times. That period is no longer referred to as the "Dark Ages". It was not as intellectually stark as atheists would like us to believe. Not an excellent source, but a start: https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/medieval-world/medieval-europe/a/introduction-to-the-middle-ages

It was a time of upheaval, for certain... but that was more due to the collapse of the primary governing system of the ancient world and the consequent re-shaping of the European nations.

Blogger TheRedSkull November 04, 2015 6:42 AM  

Send me a despot,
Send me a despot,
Right now
Right now


Heavens yes, send me a despot. Why do you think Saddam Hussein was preferable to democracy in Iraq? Because one big scorpion in your house is better than a thousand little ones.

Why do you think Machiavelli wrote The Prince to try to save Italy? Because he knew that once a people's virtue is lost, no power on Earth or Heaven can restore it. Even God couldn't come up with an answer that didn't involve external invasion and conquest.

What nobility you Cato the Youngers show! And such purposeless foolishness it is. When good men perish fighting the inevitable, they leave only bad ones to manage the real.

Rho Rho Rho your boat, gently up the stream
Merrily merrily merrily merrily
Life is but a dream.

Blogger Cail Corishev November 04, 2015 7:58 AM  

Christiany ruled supreme in Europe for a thousand years. It was called the dark ages. A time of repression and persecution of ideas that didn't fit contemporary worldview.

Okaaay, you can marry your boyfriend.

Blogger TheRedSkull November 04, 2015 8:30 AM  

Make no mistake. The tiger that roared across Asia is here. Only a strong man can ride the Left Singularity. The sooner we acquiesce, the sooner the tiger stops growing. Better he derive his support from we the sane, for an English Restoration, than from the they the mad, for a Maoist revolution.

Anonymous Giuseppe The Kurgan November 04, 2015 10:24 AM  

The age of fairplay and goodsportsmanship is over. You don't have to like it; I certainly don't. Unfortunately, we have no choice but to accept it. And if you can't bring yourself to do so now, don't worry, you will soon enough.

Vox, thanks for clarifying this view of yours unambiguously. It was a missing puzzle piece for me regarding your exact philosophy.

Blogger Frank Brady November 04, 2015 12:37 PM  

@praetorian

You wrote, "Can you demonstrate this? Or, by "irrational" do you mean "something that I don't like"?"

The First Amendment:"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

It is irrational because it licenses tyranny by empowering government to decide what one can believe or say or organize to peacefully petition for or against. It confuses thoughts and speech with illegal violence and coercion. Willingness to use the power of government to silence those who are advocating things that one doesn't like betrays a lack of faith in the power of one's ideas.

Anonymous A.B. Prosper November 04, 2015 3:04 PM  

Kirk, perhaps true on a broad basis but the IQ of Christendom is dropping. All peoples are not the same and while African and Asian and Latins are fellow Christians, they aren't culturally or socially the Christendom Vox and others are thinking of.

As I noted Western Christendom and Eastern Christendom is in a population collapse, not one Christian country there has above replacement fertility even the US and the actual the growth in Christendom is in groups with either an equal or lower IQ lower IQ than the Muslims .Asia is an exception but I can't speak for a far east Asian Christendom if such a thing is plausible.

In Western Europe even stalwarts like Ireland is are longer part of Christendom and a great many parts of the European East are not either. The US is the only exception and its slowly becoming less religious.

1.4 in Poland and 1.8 TFR is not a young Christian future.

In the end the new Christians are not us and will lead themselves in their own ways on Gospel matters. Don't assume that they will be lead from our lands or by our people or won't take a very different tack.

Simply, we can't have the same Christendom

Now as for a New Christendom, don't assume the numbers are is Christians favor or that they or anyone else will have enough force to control an entire continent sized empire or that it is wise or wanted.

That said owning part of the country, the most religious parts and putting them under some new Constitution, might be doable and a workable plan, Nova Natio Sub Domine is somewhat plausible.

No matter what though, it won't be terribly different than the Middle East, a war ready theocratic dictatorship surrounded by nations who don't much like them and very possibly filled to the brim with resentful people .

Not pleasant at all.

Blogger John Wright November 04, 2015 3:09 PM  

"Christianity isn't in such desperate shape that it needs a campaign of religious cleansing and open war in a desperate attempt to stay relevant . It was never meant for everybody anyway."

Some day, you really should speak to a Christian, and find out something about them. Then, perhaps, you will not make statements akin to saying the water is desperately trying to remain relevant to the fish, or that Christ only came for the elect, or other equally nonsensical statements.

Blogger John Wright November 04, 2015 3:14 PM  

"Christiany ruled supreme in Europe for a thousand years. It was called the dark ages. A time of repression and persecution of ideas that didn't fit contemporary worldview"

LOL. When the clock, the eyeglasses, the flying buttress and the book were invented, and slavery, once the staple of the Roman Empire, softly and suddenly vanished away.

Someone has been reading too much Edward Gibbon. There are better sources with more honest information about the period. The repressions of which you complain date from the Reformation and Counterreformation, which was a later period, not to be confused with the Middle Ages, usually given as AD 600 to 1300.

Blogger Cui Pertinebit November 04, 2015 3:21 PM  

This is a point I've been trying to make to men on the alt-right/reactosphere for a while. The still-official teaching of the Catholic Church (the notorious apostasy of the popes and hierarchs for the past 60 years notwithstanding), is that "error has no rights." Rights are claims based on actual justice, which is rooted in objective morality; there can thus be no just claim to engage in blank-slate activities (speech, exercise of religion, journalism) abstracted from the principles of an objective right and wrong. All of us know this, since there are things we would never let slide under the cover of "rights" to free speech, free press, free exercise of religion; everything is thus reduced to a mere fight over the Overton window - over what is or isn't "beyond the pale" when interpreting these rights.

Now, the Church may teach that error has no rights, objectively, but that does not mean she is opposed to all toleration. There is room for *toleration,* but not for a right-based entitlement to blank-check activities. For example, at no point should men think of themselves as having the "right" to say whatever they want; rather, they acknowledge that the general welfare is better served when decent men make well-intentioned (even if erroneous or unwise) contributions to public thought, and therefore the State grants tolerance to this type of activity... but as soon as there is any advocacy for an objectively immoral approach (celebration of sodomy, theft via Socialism, etc.), or any malicious and deliberately mendacious speech, this is not tolerated at all, but is punished as a crime.

Blogger Cui Pertinebit November 04, 2015 3:26 PM  

@Frank Brady

"Willingness to use the power of government to silence those who are advocating things that one doesn't like betrays a lack of faith in the power of one's ideas."

No; it expresses a fundamental conviction of the truth of one's ideas, and an unwillingness to tolerate a threat against the right ordering of society. It also expresses a lack of faith in the mob, and the likelihood that they will cleave to the truth rather than to the demagogue. The past 500 years have been a poignant lesson in the essentially misguided faith in the principles of Democracy and the misnomered Enlightenment.

Anonymous A.B. Prosper November 04, 2015 5:01 PM  

John Wright, I understand the core gospel ideas pretty well thanks. The thing is to the faithful or the needy its a "fish to water" issue to those who aren't its 6 impossible things before breakfast one or just another belief system imposed by force or social pressure. This is the human norm, nothing special really.

Upfront I'm very nominally Christian, probably more of a pro-Christian secular and really without much faith at all. In truth I think the core ideology, that the creator is angry with us, that human nature is wrong and that sin even exists is utter nonsense. In some respects these ideas are actively harmful to human well being. Now Its not bad for civilization building on a larger than tribal scale but its not necessarily better than the alternatives.

Pagan Rome and Carthage and all did rather well for long long periods and weren't worse than they violence every other organized society inflicts on its less organized neighbors.

Also re: slavery. Plenty of good Christians kept slaves, its allowed. Its inefficient these days depending on definition, unfair but slavery isn't that great an evil. Also heavy limitation of legal Western slavery (we still have prison labor ) was good for material progress but I don't see it as a high point or really accept the idea of progress. We still torture, execute and behave basically the same as people ever did, Things change but they remain the same varying mostly in scale and local fashion. So no public crucifixion (sorry Tom) but instead SuperMax and whatever happens in black sites . No chattel slavery but for profit prison labor, same thing, smaller scale. Amusingly Secular Europe (Mostly North and West) seems to be doing even less than the US is.


All that said, Western civilization can go on quite well without Christendom . They are not perpetually tied together though finding a new moral system, if only tried customs that work will be a challenge. It needs to be done fast to avoid Islam filling the vacuum.
And complicating matters the dominant "Cathedral" ideology has several very bad flaws and seems to suppress fertility and destabilize society to a sizable degree. Its also tied too much to a probably unsustainable economic structure. It fails the function test. Now human nature is maladaptive in some ways outside its evolved context (a small tribe) but humans are within limits fairly adaptable and so we go on, till in the end sooner or later, we'll all die out.

I suppose if Christians are right I'll be tortured forever for failing to believe in the words people wrote of a dead Jewish person some think is a Demigod or Messiah but again if the about equally numerous Muslims are right, I'm just as screwed. These world views, religious or secular cannot be reconciled and in the end, its probable that the religious one will win out do to differential fertility rates If it does, far better it be Christianity than Islam.

As I see it Christianity by itself has two strengths, 1st I suppose this is a tautology but if its true than its necessary. If that isn't the case what does Christianity bring to the table ? Well its an acceptably useful pro natal ideology and its better than Islam for sure. Does it bring more? Well maybe, maybe its Marx's Opiate of the Masses too but most faiths are and that's a secular conceit , call it hope for some if you prefer, Its also a pretty good spiritual framework. And that I suppose it the real test to me, "Conservatism" , or does it work in the long run? The Cathedral/ Leftism doesn't seem to but Christianity does and it seems compatible enough with Westerners to work within our civilization models .Other models can too , Rome went on centuries before Christendom and other Carthage, Greece centuries as well but they need to be compatible. How we get to a more functional system though isn't a question I can answer but that said if we returned to Christianity even if it was false it would not be a bad thing.

Blogger TheRedSkull November 04, 2015 6:08 PM  

"Willingness to use the power of government to silence those who are advocating things that one doesn't like betrays a lack of faith in the power of one's ideas."

No it betrays a lack of faith in man's reason.

It is amazing to me that everyone has forgotten the first amendment intended to devolve the powers of censorship to the several states, not to eradicate it.

Apparently some of you disapprove of the chilling effects of Elijah. I guess God isn't confident in the power of his ideas. All force is motivated by insecurity. He probably had a traumatic childhood.

Blogger Frank Brady November 04, 2015 6:39 PM  

@Cui Pertinebit, If mere words can "constitute a threat against the right ordering of society" then the "right ordering of society" rests on a foundation of sand. All despots believe they--and only they--are capable of defining the "right ordering of society". In the last analysis, this idea assures tyrants that they need not worry about any threats to their preferences.

@TheRedSkull I have no problem with Elijah. I do have a problem with those who would grant the state the indisputable power to determine the will of God.

Anonymous Frank Brady November 04, 2015 6:53 PM  

@TheRedSkull

Nothing in the Constitution remotely suggests that the First Amendment " intended to devolve the powers of censorship to the several states, not to eradicate it." It is silent on the issue. You might as well argue that the Constitution intended to allow the states to authorize pedophilia, kidnapping, or murder.

Blogger TheRedSkull November 04, 2015 6:57 PM  

What irony that the supposed defenders of the First Amendment negate its intent of preserving Christian state churches, while VD in opposing it merely upholds that intent.

The purpose of a state church, controlled by warriors and upheld by the sword, is simple - to prevent the status competition of priests from creating precisely the holiness spiral which now drives us inexorably to the nuclear conclusion of this sorry species.

Men lie. Bullets don't. Not by water, but fire.

Blogger TheRedSkull November 04, 2015 7:00 PM  

@131 You lack basic knowledge of American history. Two seconds on Google.

https://www.facinghistory.org/nobigotry/religion-colonial-america-trends-regulations-and-beliefs

Anonymous Discard November 04, 2015 7:52 PM  

116 Raziel Walker: The Dark Ages ran from 476 A.D. (The fall of Rome to German barbarians) to 800 (The crowning of Charlemagne as Holy Roman Emperor). There are differing views on these dates, but nobody thinks that the cathedrals were built by Dark Agers.

The 20th Century was a time of repression and persecution of ideas. Was that the Dark Age Two?

Compare 18th Century America to the 18th Century Ottoman Empire, a Christian vs Moslem comparison. Where would you prefer to live?

You are just silly.

Blogger Frank Brady November 04, 2015 8:19 PM  

@TheRedSkull

Your link (https://www.facinghistory.org/nobigotry/religion-colonial-america-trends-regulations-and-beliefs) contains absolutely nothing confirming your claims about the "intent" of the First Amendment. It does recite a long history of colonial religious practices prior to 1789, none of which support your assertion.

Blogger TheRedSkull November 04, 2015 8:34 PM  

@135 Then you are exceptionally dense, as the link indicates state churches and state religious persecution. Here's another that says it more explicitly for you. Or you could actually read a history book older than 75 years. The First Amendment was a nonaggression pact between a diversity of Christian bigots.

Here.

Blogger Raziel Walker November 05, 2015 6:05 AM  

@125 I had no idea who Edward Gibbon was.

@111@134 I was thinking more about stuff like the inquisition which came a lot later. You are right, there are worse periods regarding suppression of free speech and science as the dark or middle ages. But I will need a lot more education before I accept that religion didn't do almost as much harm as it did good.

Anonymous Frank Brady November 05, 2015 11:10 AM  

@TheRedSkull

You wrote, "@135 Then you are exceptionally dense, as the link indicates state churches and state religious persecution. Here's another that says it more explicitly for you. Or you could actually read a history book older than 75 years. The First Amendment was a nonaggression pact between a diversity of Christian bigots."

Inasmuch as the link you provided doesn't mention the First Amendment (which was the topic I addressed) and inasmuch as the First Amendment's purpose was exactly to prevent the state persecution of religion, I'll take your last effort as an admission of defeat. I apologize for mistaking you for a serious person. It won't happen again.

Blogger Cui Pertinebit November 05, 2015 4:07 PM  

@frank brady

Ideas have consequences; ideas are dangerous things; ideas are expressed in words.

I absolutely have an interest in forbidding any discussion of a collusion to conspire to dispossess me of my land and property by a program of confiscatory, redistributive, agenda-driven taxation. It would be morally right to round up people who seriously discuss doing this, to have them shot. Likewise for people who advocate for heinous social and moral evils. You act as if only the tyrant need be feared; the mob is more fearsome by far. I say death to them both.

Every government has its good and evil versions: kingdom/tyranny, aristocracy/oligarchy and polity/democracy. I believe in a form of government that combines the best features of all three forms, enshrines the principles of natural law and Christian morality as the definitive norms of society, and rejects the concept of humanistic rights abstracted from said norms. There is no "right" to advocate for evil. To pretend otherwise is to mock the very concept of the Right, of Truth, of Justice.

Blogger Sevron November 05, 2015 5:15 PM  

Question for Raziel, how long did the Inquisition last and how many people were put to death by the Church during it?

Anonymous Frank Brady November 05, 2015 7:01 PM  

@Cui Pertinebit

The tyrant and the mob suffer from the same moral deficiencies as a legacy of original sin. Tyrants come in all flavors, some motivated by religious zeal and others motivated by anti-religious hatred. Both are convinced they have an untrammeled right to impose their respective wills upon others. Both are capable of unspeakable (no pun intended) evil.

I believe absolutely in God's existence. I also believe in mortal man's imperfection, a characteristic which should make any human claim to infallibility suspect and which should disqualify any government or denomination from claiming a license to impose its view of God's will upon others by force.

In my view, neither you nor I have any right to commit violence against people merely because they think about or discuss things of which we disapprove. However, we have not only a right but an obligation, insufficiently exercised in my view, to use whatever degree of force is necessary to stop morally-unjustified violence directed against us, our families, or our property.

Blogger TheRedSkull November 05, 2015 8:19 PM  

@138 Yes, instead the link talked about state ESTABLISHMENTS OF RELIGION AND PERSECUTION THEREBY. Moreover the second link is even more explicit and mentions the First Amendment BY NAME. Someone who is literally dumber than his ctrl-f function is unlikely to follow anything I say, granted. From the link:

"The period after the Revolutionary War saw a lot of infighting between the various states and Christian denominations. Virginia, which was home to the largest portion of Anglicans loyal to the Church of England, was the scene of notorious acts of religious persecution against Baptists and Presbyterians. Anglicans physically assaulted Baptists, bearing theological and social animosity. In 1771, a local Virginia sheriff yanked a Baptist preacher from the stage at his parish and beat him to the ground outside, where he also delivered twenty lashes with a horsewhip. Similarly, in 1778, Baptist ministers David Barrow and Edward Mintz were conducting services at the Mill Swamp Baptist Church in Portsmouth, Virginia.[2] As soon as the hymn was given out, a gang of men rushed the stage and grabbed the two ministers, took them to the nearby Nansemond River swamp, and dunked and held their heads in the mud until they nearly drowned to death.

The period during and soon after the Revolutionary War also saw abundant political manifestations of religious conflict. At the time, some states abolished churches, while supporting others, issued preaching licenses, and collected tax money to fund and establish state churches. Each state constitution differed in its policy on religious establishment, or state-supported religion. It would not be until well after the adoption of the Constitution of 1789 and the First Amendment religion clauses that the disestablishment for which the United States is so recognized became the de facto practice."

This from a modern secondary source wholly hostile to Christian state churches.

Anonymous Frank Brady November 05, 2015 8:46 PM  

@TheRedSkull...Your post is an excellent explanation of why the First Amendment is necessary.

Blogger TheRedSkull November 05, 2015 11:37 PM  

In other words, you agree with the SJW interpretation of the First Amendment that forbids the state churches it was ratified by the states to protect.

I'm perfectly sympathetic to your position. I used to hold it. It is the default fair-play American interpretation of the First Amendment. Too bad it's totally wrong.

As soon as American states lost the will to meet holier than thou status-competing heretics with fire and sword, the rapid evolution to anti-slavery, women's lib, and modern progressive insanity began.

Your position ends in a mushroom cloud. Free speech means you can scream as much as you want.

Anonymous Frank Brady November 07, 2015 12:55 AM  

@TheRedSkull

No, I agree with the English language "interpretation" of the First Amendment. It's not at all clear to me which translation you're using.

Anonymous Frank Brady November 07, 2015 1:07 AM  

@TheRedSkull, you wrote, "In other words, you agree with the SJW interpretation of the First Amendment that forbids the state churches it was ratified by the states to protect."

No, I agree with the standard English language version of the First Amendment. I am completely unfamiliar with your version.

Blogger TheRedSkull November 07, 2015 11:57 AM  

Congress shall make no law

Not

Government shall make no law

Read history.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts