Religious Liberty is a sham

Religious Liberty is a sham, and perhaps the greatest con trick ever hoisted upon Catholics and pretty much all orthodox religions in general. Many Christians think that religious liberty is the greatest thing to the faith since sliced bread and that it somehow protects their rights to practice it.

Nothing can be further from the truth:

“Modern religious liberty, as practiced in the United States at least, owes its legal origin to the Deist Enlightenment writer John Locke (1632-1704). In his Essay on Toleration, Locke advocated a broad religious liberty for all sects and opinions. But, as in the case of Julian, there was a sinister motive behind this liberty – while religious liberty might be good for smaller religious sects to flourish, it also has the effect that no one sect that grow large enough to disturb the state. In other words, the freedom of sects to multiply will ensure that the traditional ideal of one, universal Christian Church can never be realized.”

“Locke, like Julian the Apostate, is concerned with religious liberty insofar as it is a means to keep the Christian Church from unifying in any meaningful sense. Modern Christians, especially in the west, may be confused on what to think of the foundational American doctrine of religious toleration; but the enemies of Christianity have never been.”

This country is never short of self-professed Bible thumpers who simply love to talk about their devotion to Jesus and how everyone should embrace the faith and how communities should have Christian values.

Yet, how would they respond if somebody were to press this idea even further, to advance it so that every aspect of society in every nook and cranny from the hilltops to the cities and towns should have “to instaurate everything in Christ?” (Ephesians 1:10)

Many of these supposedly devoted Jesus freaks would suddenly become quite “moderate” and hesitant, their fanaticism suddenly lukewarm in comparison. They would suddenly talk about how all religions should be equally valid aka First Amendment (which means Satanism is equal with Christianity) and that people should keep religion into a private matter and that it should not be so publicly expressed, forcing a ridiculous distinction between private and public life in terms of religion and civic life which leads to nothing but non-belief.

So they want a tame Christianity, one that should be subordinate to a state that is above all religious matters, then they praise a “Christian Nation” of atomized individual “believers” who in no way constitute a one, universal, Church.

A far cry from Christendom, a time when there was no such thing as the word “religion” since everything truly was instaurated in Christ so that like the air we breathe it permeated all facets of life and so need not be mentioned.



  • As NeoReaction diagnosed from the start, secularism is a MYTH. It never existed, but was a convenient ruse to ensure that the imposition of a new religion was not met with violent resistance. This illusion of neutrality bait and switch is now obvious to anyone willing to open their eyes and comprehend the religious landscape for what it is. We have a morality police as any other age, only our are both insane and impure. The impuritans as I call them.

    • The mantle of “Neutrality” is the justification the state uses establish it’s dominance over the church with absolute impunity. Since every issue or subject is premised on the supposed virtue of the impartiality of neutrality, people living societies based upon Liberalism are secular from the get-go and all the warring ideologues attempt to earn the title of being “neutral” (AKA libertarianism).

      This further defangs people with any religious bent since they would rather not be seen as “extemist or fanatical” and therefore not suited to “western values.” where politically you can only be moderate (AKA conservative) or progressive, who are both secular and anti-traditional.

      The illusion of neutrality has us believe that the medieval church was evil for being “non-neutral” since picking a side is always considered extremist and therefore evil by modern standards, yet modern people have their own versions of heresies and taboos, which the Progressives always manufacture upon the populace and the conservatives fall for since they too are modernists.