(read it) (learn it) (share it) (rhetorical weaponry)
—“Religious freedom is a fundamental right”— The Heritage Foundation
[T]his cannot logically be true. No fundamental right can exist if it violates natural law.
Religion must be compatible with Natural Law or it is not religion but politics in religious dress, or warfare in disguise, but not religion.
So it is a contradiction to state that religions that are incompatible with natural law can be claimed a natural right – that is to say there are not natural rights.
So I have come to disagree with freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Instead: Require Truthful Speech and Truthful Religion: Compatibility with Natural Law.
Religion remains truthful despite the use myth, parable, allegory, scripture and ritual, as long as it conveys truthful principles by those analogies: compatibility with natural law.
Christianity is compatible with Natural Law. Poly-moralism and Dualist ethics are not compatible with natural law.
Christianity advises us how to act in concert with natural law. Islam, Judaism, and a handful of others recommend actions an expressly counter to natural law. And they state that they contain laws – the Jewish Halakha and the Islamic Sharia both claim divine laws, yet they are incompatible with natural law.
Christians have been tolerant of heresies and competing religions in order to prevent the mandate of a state religion, and therefore to protect natural law, and the independence of religious wisdom based upon natural law from harm by the folly of men.
Neither Christianity nor Natural Law prohibit us from the expurgation of immoral religions that violate natural law.
Nor are we prohibited from philosophies that violate natural law: had we defeated marxism-leninism earlier then we would have saved a hundred million souls from suffering.
We cast Islam out of western europa for its violence and immorality, and failed to throw it out of eastern europa, north Africa, and Byzantium. Look at what our failure wrought wherever we failed.
We are in the midst of throwing of the second great deceit after the forcible conversion of the romans: the pseudoscientific attempt at western colonization: boazian anthropology, freudian psychology, marxist sociology, cantorian mathematical platonism, marxist-keynesian correlative economics, enlightenment equality, and the philosophical corners of marxist socialism, trotskyist-straussian neo-conservatism, and randian-rothbardian libertinism, and neo-puritanism+postmodern-feminism.
And we have come into contact with the third wave, this time not by force (islamic conquest), not by religious conversion (jewish christianity), not by pseudoscientific conversion (jewish cosmopolitanism), not by outright deception (postmodernism, feminism, and propaganda).
We the current conflict is our awakening will to evict this second attempt at colonization of the west, despite our century of tolerance – a tolerance that was abused by everyone we tolerated.
There are no unlimited general rules. Our delay in discovering the theory of Relativity taught us this. There are no unlimited premises. No infinite deontological theories other than tautologies.
The limit of religious tolerance is Natural Law.
Everything else is just another act of war wearing a mask of religion to deceive us by preying upon our altruism.
We are the people who invented truth. We rescued mankind from ignorance, mysticism, disease, and poverty using our technology of truth: science and natural law.
We are the only people to have done it.
They others hate it.
We must not perish from this earth.
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
One response to “No, Religious Freedom Cannot Be a Fundamental Natural Right”
Superb! I’ve long believed the US cannot afford to tolerate the intolerable pseudoreligion of Islam. You have succinctly explained why.