Should there be a Pan-European religion?

[Arsenium DeLight]

Do you think there should be a Pan-European religious or political doctrine?

[Damião de Góis]

It exists already. It's called catholicism:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/Europe_religion_map_en.png

[Arsenium DeLight]

Christianity is not a European religion and its religious doctrine doesn't preach nationalism. I don't think Christianity is compatible with Europe as well as Islam is compatible with Arab nationalism.

[Damião de Góis]

Christianity is not a European religion and its religious doctrine doesn't preach nationalism. I don't think Christianity is compatible with Europe as well as Islam is compatible with Arab nationalism.

I said Catholic specifically, not Christian.

[Arsenium DeLight]

Pan-European identity refers to the sense of personal identification with Europe. The most concrete examples of pan-Europeanism are the European Union (EU) and the older Council of Europe. 'Europe' is widely used as a synonym for the EU, as 500 million Europeans are EU citizens, however many nations that are not part of the EU may have large portions of their populations who identify themselves as European as well as their own nationality. The prefix pan implies that the identity applies throughout Europe, and especially in an EU context, 'pan-European' is often contrasted with national.

The related term Europeanism refers to the assertion that the people of Europe have a distinctive set of political, economic and social norms and values that are slowly diminishing and replacing existing national or state-based norms and values.

Historically, European culture has not led to a geopolitical unit. As with the constructed nation, it might well be the case that a political or state entity will have to prefigure the creation of a broad, collective identity. At present, European integration co-exists with national loyalties and national patriotism.

A development of European identity is regarded as a vital objective in pursuing the establishment of a politically, economically and militarily influential united Europe in the world. It equally importantly supports the foundations of common European values, such as of fundamental human rights and spread of welfare. It also inherently strengthens the supra-national democratic and social institutions of the European Union. The concept of common European identity is viewed as rather a by-product than the main goal of the European integration process, and is actively promoted.

[Comte Arnau]

Christianity is not a European religion

Not only is it a European religion, but also one of the main causes of the birth, formation and definition of Europe.

[Arsenium DeLight]

Christianity (including Catholicism) is losing its ground in Europe, and there needs to be something to replace it. What can possibly replace Christianity that preserves European nationalism better than Christianity?

[Arsenium DeLight]

Not only is it a European religion, but also one of the main causes of the birth, formation and definition of Europe.

But Christianity is not a European export, says the Pope

The “most famous poet of the patristic age," St. Ephrem the Syrian, was the topic of the Pope’s general audience held in Paul VI Hall today.

Wishing to show that the Christian faith is not European in origin, Benedict XVI pointed to St. Ephrem’s origins in modern day Turkey (Anatolia).

The Pope remarked how "it is widely believed today that Christianity is a European religion which subsequently exported that continent's culture to other countries. But the truth is much more complex."

Picking up on a theme from his audience last week, Pope Benedict reminded people that, "The roots of the Christian religion are in the Old Testament, hence in Jerusalem and the Semitic world. And Christianity constantly draws nourishment from these Old Testament roots.”

During the first centuries of Christianity, it spread both “westwards - to the Greco-Latin world where it later inspired European culture - and eastwards to Persia and India, where it contributed to the formation of a specific culture, in Semitic languages and with its own identity," the pontiff noted.

Benedict XVI indicated that "in order demonstrate the one Christian faith's multiplicity of cultural form ever since its inception" he had chosen to focus his audience on St. Ephrem, a theologian and a poet who was born in Nisibis (present-day Turkey) around the year 306 and died in Edessa (present-day Armenia) in 373.

[Ars Moriendi]

Christianity is losing its ground in Europe, and there needs to be something to replace it. What can possibly replace Christianity that preserves European nationalism better than Christianity?

"European nationalism" has never existed, and it will probably not exist unless some profound destruction of culture is done before.

[Arsenium DeLight]

What happens when people continue to lose their faith in Christianity? What else will bind Europe together?

Let's face it Europe is progressively becoming more and more irreligious.

Here is a contemporaneous map on the state of European religiosity.

http://i57.tinypic.com/o5z43t.png
Percentages of people in European countries who said in 2010 that they "believe there is a God"

[Arsenium DeLight]

http://i60.tinypic.com/15zrpxg.png

[Desaix DeBurgh]

No, ideally there should be no religion in Europe and the Western world :

http://a0.img.mobypicture.com/14fe07a287eedfd7f0e35a1ce6abf0d4_view.jpg

http://www.pagunview.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/43//2012/10/Religion_is_stupid.jpg

http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/Science+religion_20ba00_3494254.jpg

http://images6.fanpop.com/image/photos/33500000/IQ-VS-Religion-debate-33528388-676-512.jpg

[Comte Arnau]

But Christianity is not a European export, says the Pope

The “most famous poet of the patristic age," St. Ephrem the Syrian, was the topic of the Pope’s general audience held in Paul VI Hall today.

Wishing to show that the Christian faith is not European in origin, Benedict XVI pointed to St. Ephrem’s origins in modern day Turkey (Anatolia).

The Pope remarked how "it is widely believed today that Christianity is a European religion which subsequently exported that continent's culture to other countries. But the truth is much more complex."

Picking up on a theme from his audience last week, Pope Benedict reminded people that, "The roots of the Christian religion are in the Old Testament, hence in Jerusalem and the Semitic world. And Christianity constantly draws nourishment from these Old Testament roots.”

During the first centuries of Christianity, it spread both “westwards - to the Greco-Latin world where it later inspired European culture - and eastwards to Persia and India, where it contributed to the formation of a specific culture, in Semitic languages and with its own identity," the pontiff noted.

Benedict XVI indicated that "in order demonstrate the one Christian faith's multiplicity of cultural form ever since its inception" he had chosen to focus his audience on St. Ephrem, a theologian and a poet who was born in Nisibis (present-day Turkey) around the year 306 and died in Edessa (present-day Armenia) in 373.

Those statements clearly have a purpose. But the fact is that if Christianity wouldn't have been adopted as the State Church of the Roman Empire, Christianity would have faded away time ago as a Jewish sect and Europe as a concept wouldn't have existed.

[Arsenium DeLight]

I said Catholic specifically, not Christian.

Is it possible to reconcile nationalism to catholicism? I am not talking about the skin headed jack booted variety, I mean the political movement of asserting national interests and independence. I have always been drawn to civic nationalism, communitarianism and localism, but I struggle to see how this fits with the internationalist outlook of the Roman Catholic Church.

[Damião de Góis]

Is it possible to reconcile nationalism to catholicism? I am not talking about the skin headed jack booted variety, I mean the political movement of asserting national interests and independence. I have always been drawn to civic nationalism, communitarianism and localism, but I struggle to see how this fits with the internationalist outlook of the Roman Catholic Church.

No, religion should have a secondary role.

[Arsenium DeLight]

Pope Leo XIII warned against Americanism:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/L13TESTE.HTM



The underlying principle of these new opinions is that, in order to more easily attract those who differ from her, the Church should shape her teachings more in accord with the spirit of the age and relax some of her ancient severity and make some concessions to new opinions. Many think that these concessions should be made not only in regard to ways of living, but even in regard to doctrines which belong to the deposit of the faith. They contend that it would be opportune, in order to gain those who differ from us, to omit certain points of her teaching which are of lesser importance, and to tone down the meaning which the Church has always attached to them. It does not need many words, beloved son, to prove the falsity of these ideas if the nature and origin of the doctrine which the Church proposes are recalled to mind. The Vatican Council says concerning this point: "For the doctrine of faith which God has revealed has not been proposed, like a philosophical invention to be perfected by human ingenuity, but has been delivered as a divine deposit to the Spouse of Christ to be faithfully kept and infallibly declared. Hence that meaning of the sacred dogmas is perpetually to be retained which our Holy Mother, the Church, has once declared, nor is that meaning ever to be departed from under the pretense or pretext of a deeper comprehension of them."
—Constitutio de Fide Catholica, Chapter iv.

[Arsenium DeLight]

I am interested in whether Christianity can be reconciled with modern day, self-interested nationalism.

As far as I am concerned, Christianity is a universal doctrine, a cosmopolitan idea that transcends national borders and ethnic differences. There are virtually no allusions to race or ethnicity or nationality in Christian teaching and all the major Churches (certainly the Roman Church - catholic means universal in Greek) claim some sort of universality.

So are you a nationalist and how do you square your nationalism with Christian morality?

This is a very pressing issue at the moment in many industrialised countries. Immigration and globalisation force people to think about global ethics.

[Arsenium DeLight]

Secularism is one of the most important movements in the history of the modern West, helping differentiate the West not only from the Middle Ages and more ancient eras, but also from other cultural regions around the world. The modern West is what it is largely because of secularism; for some, that is a reason to cheer, but for others it is a reason to mourn. A better understanding of the history and nature of secularism will help people understand its role and influence in society today. Why did a secular vision of society develop in Western culture but not so much elsewhere in the world?

[Arsenium DeLight]

Defining Secularism
The concept of "secular" can be used in a couple of ways which, while closely related, are nevertheless different enough to make it difficult to know for sure what people might mean. The word secular means "of this world" in Latin and is the opposite of religious.
As a doctrine, secularism is usually used to describe any philosophy which forms its ethics without reference to religious dogmas and which promotes the development of human art and science.

Secularism is Not a Religion
Calling secularism (the insistence on separation of church and state) a religion should be instantly recognized as an oxymoron, analogous to claiming that bachelors can be married. Sadly this is not the case, and it has become far too common for critics of secularism to claim that it's a religion which is being improperly supported by the government. Examining the characteristics which define religions as distinct from other types of belief systems reveals just how wrong such claims are.

Religious Origins of Secularism
Because the concept of the secular is normally conceived as standing in opposition to religion many people may not realize that it originally developed within a religious context. This may also come as quite a surprise to religious fundamentalists who decry the growth of secularism in the modern world. Rather than an atheistic conspiracy to undermine Christian civilization, secularism was originally developed within a Christian context and for the sake of preserving peace among Christians.

[Arsenium DeLight]

Secularism as a Humanistic, Atheistic Philosophy
Although secularism can certainly be understood as simply the absence of religion, it is also often treated as a philosophical system with personal, political, cultural, and social implications.

Secularism as a philosophy must be treated a bit differently than secularism as a mere idea, but just what sort of philosophy can secularism be? For those who treated secularism as a philosophy, it was a humanistic and even atheistic philosophy that sought the good of humanity in this life.

Secularism as a Political & Social Movement
Secularism has always carried a strong connotation of the desire to establish an autonomous political and social sphere which is naturalistic and materialistic, as opposed to a religious realm where the supernatural and faith take precedence.

Secularism vs. Secularization
Secularism argues generally for a sphere of knowledge, values, and action that is independent of religious authority, but it does not necessarily exclude religion from having any authority over political and social affairs.

Secularization, however, is a process which does involve such an exclusion.

[Arsenium DeLight]

Secularism & Secularization are Vital for Liberty and Democracy
Supporters of secularism and secularization can best rebut attacks from religious critics by emphasizing how the two are vital for democracy, personal liberty, and even religious freedom.

Secularism prescribes state neutrality in religious matters, but they are not morally or politically neutral. They are positive goods which must be defended as foundations of liberal democracy. This is why they are opposed by authoritarian religious institutions and authoritarian religious leaders. Secularism and secularization enhance the broad distribution of power and oppose the concentration of power in the hands of a few.

[Arsenium DeLight]

Religion in a Secular Society
If secularism opposes the public support of religion or the presence of ecclesiastical authorities simultaneously exercising public authority, what role is left for religion in a secular society? Is religion doomed to a slow decline and attrition? Is it relegated to a web of quaint but unimportant cultural traditions? Such are the fears of opponents to secularism and secularization who argue that religion is too important to be eliminated in such a manner and blame atheists for their woes.

[Arsenium DeLight]

Those statements clearly have a purpose. But the fact is that if Christianity wouldn't have been adopted as the State Church of the Roman Empire, Christianity would have faded away time ago as a Jewish sect and Europe as a concept wouldn't have existed.

I don't see why the Greco-Roman world could only have been saved by a sect of Judaism. What did the belief in Jesus' divinity have to do with European nationalism. And what Christian religious doctrine exactly helped shape Europe?

What is it that Christianity accomplished for Europe that a pagan or ancestry-worshipping religion couldn't have done. Are you suggesting that Christianity is the most optimal religion for the task of unifying Europe? How do you know that pagan cults or heathenry wouldn't have been able to accomplish this and possibly more.

Christianity is a meek and mild religion. It isn't as political, totalitarian, overarching as a unifying religion should be for Europe. Europe could have formed a new Empire after the fall of the Roman Empire but apparently Christianity didn't accomplish this. I envision a religion shaped with the interests of Europe and its people in mind which could be more beneficial for Europeans than Christianity ever was and ever will be.

[Arsenium DeLight]

Imagine this

http://i60.tinypic.com/27z9bmg.jpg

but Pan-European, not chauvinist German! And not necessarily fascist. Not antisemitic. And not necessarily racist either.

http://i61.tinypic.com/2ppgacz.jpg

[Dictator]

TL;DR

[Arsenium DeLight]

Can you envision a European Parliament as united as this?

http://i57.tinypic.com/t06p6r.jpg

Of course not! Because Europe doesn't have a binding religion as the Nazis had. Europe needs a vision for its future.

[Arsenium DeLight]

Does Europe need a religion to unite its member states or could an irreligious system of beliefs suffice?

[Arsenium DeLight]

What about Humanism?

It isn't a religion, but it is a a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers critical thinking and evidence (rationalism, empiricism) over established doctrine or faith (fideism). The meaning of the term humanism has fluctuated, according to the successive intellectual movements which have identified with it. Generally, however, humanism refers to a perspective that affirms some notion of a "human nature" (sometimes contrasted with antihumanism).

In modern times, humanist movements are typically aligned with secularism, and today "Humanism" typically refers to a non-theistic life stance centred around human agency, and looking to science instead of religion in order to understand the world.

[LightHouse89]

Not only is it a European religion, but also one of the main causes of the birth, formation and definition of Europe.

Not entirely as the word Europe came from the Greeks. But Christianity helped Europe as a whole advance and become what it is today for good or worse......I use to blame christianity for the backwardness of the current period but the truth is that is far from the truth. However cultural marxists have infiltrated christianity and corrupted it. Maybe the same can be said of Islam with the current crap happening in that part of the world.

[Sakis]

Not entirely as the word Europe came from the Greeks. But Christianity helped Europe as a whole advance and become what it is today for good or worse......I use to blame christianity for the backwardness of the current period but the truth is that is far from the truth. However cultural marxists have infiltrated christianity and corrupted it. Maybe the same can be said of Islam with the current crap happening in that part of the world.

No one has corrupted Christianity,it was shit from the beginning,religions were always against science because it proves them wrong,lots of scientists were labelled as sorcerers and satanists and they were arrested and trialed by the christian churches.

[LightHouse89]

No one has corrupted Christianity,it was shit from the beginning,religions were always against science because it proves them wrong,lots of scientists were labelled as sorcerers and satanists and they were arrested and trialed by the christian churches.

Who do you think brought down traditional europe? liberal atheists ofcourse!

[Sakis]

Who do you think brought down traditional europe? liberal atheists ofcourse!

You are missing the point here.Atheists are rational,they don't believe in fairy tales unlike the believers.

[Arsenium DeLight]

Dominion Theology or Dominionism is the idea that Christians should work toward either a nation governed by Christians or one governed by a conservative Christian understanding of biblical law.
At least under this name, it exists primarily among Protestants in the United States. It is a form of theocracy and is related to theonomy, though it does not necessarily advocate Mosaic law as the basis of government. Prominent adherents of Dominion Theology are otherwise theologically diverse, including the Calvinist Christian Reconstructionism and the charismatic/Pentecostal Kingdom Now theology and New Apostolic Reformation.

Some elements within the mainstream Christian right have been influenced by Dominion Theology authors. Indeed, some writers have applied the term "Dominionism" more broadly to the mainstream Christian right, implicitly arguing that that movement is founded upon a theology that requires Christians to govern over non-Christians. Mainstream conservatives do not call themselves "Dominionists," and the usage has sparked considerable controversy.

[Arsenium DeLight]

The Christ of Europe is a messianic doctrine based in New Testament, first popularized among various European nations by the Reformed Churches in the 16th to the 18th centuries. The doctrine, based in principles of brotherly esteem and regard for one another, was adopted in messianic terms by the Polish Romantics who referred to their homeland as the Christ of Europe or the Christ of Nations crucified during the foreign partitions of Poland. Their own unsuccessful struggle for independence from outside powers served as an expression of faith in Poland's ultimate Rising.

[Arsenium DeLight]

"The Christ of Europe" doctrine, which identified Poles collectively with the messianic suffering of the Crucifixion, saw Poland as being destined to return to glory just as Christ was.

The idea had roots going back to the Ottoman Empire and the wars against the Muslim Turks. It was reawakened and promoted during Adam Mickiewicz's exile in Paris. Mickiewicz evoked the doctrine of Poland as the "Christ of nations" in his drama Dziady, considered one of the great works of European Romanticism.

[Arsenium DeLight]

The Christian Patriot movement is a movement of American political commentators and activists. They promote various interpretations of history and law with the common theme that the federal government has turned against the ideas of liberty and individual rights which were behind the American Revolution, and America's Christian heritage.

[Arsenium DeLight]

Evangelical environmentalism is an environmental movement in the United States in which some Evangelicals have emphasized biblical mandates concerning humanity's role as steward and subsequent responsibility for the care taking of Creation. While the movement has focused on different environmental issues, it is best known for its focus of addressing climate action from a biblically grounded theological perspective.

The Evangelical Climate Initiative argues that human-induced climate change will have severe consequences and impact the poor the hardest, and that God's mandate to Adam to care for the Garden of Eden also applies to evangelicals today, and that it is therefore a moral obligation to work to mitigate climate impacts and support communities in adapting to change.

Some Evangelical groups have allied with environmentalists in teaching knowledge and developing awareness of global warming. The National Association of Evangelicals, a non profit organization, is working to encourage lawmakers to pass a law that would put restrictions on carbon emissions in the U.S.

[Mortimer]

Christianity was able to spread because it was adopted as state religion by the roman empire and also sometimes spread with force and sword, and because in middle ages the peasants followed the rites and religions of the monarch so if you convinced the monarch to baptise to christianity he made the whole country christian, so you needed to convince only one man. Other religions and even other christian sects were outlawed and sometimes persecuted which secured uniformity of religion. In 21st century it is hard to imagine such a concept of uniformity of religion in europe or west where secularism, pluralism of ideas and lifestyles exist etc. and all religions compete with eatch other for "souls", you would need a theocracy and outlaw other religions to succesfully spread ONE european religion otherwise people are divided in their faiths and world views (pluralism). There is not state religion in most european countries or the usa etc. there is freedom of religion and thought and expression etc. if someone wants to believe there are always others who would ridicule him and vice versa etc. blasphemy is not outlawed etc. which would be neccessary to keep a holy doctrine etc. In current europe and usa, west etc. i see a unified pan-european religion as quiete unrealistic. But you dont need a religion to be unified, solely being white nationalist unifies them already. if they have pan-identity as white. their faith is based on the blood and soil (hitler) not on a god

[Arsenium DeLight]

Christofascism (the name being a portmanteau of Christian and fascism) is a concept in Christian theology first mentioned by Dorothee Sölle, a Christian theologian and writer, in her book Beyond Mere Obedience: Reflections on a Christian Ethic for the Future in 1970.

To Sölle, Christofascism was caused by the embracing of authoritarian theology by the Christian church. According to Sölle, it is an arrogant, totalitarian, imperialistic attitude, characteristic of the church in Germany under Nazism, that she believed to be alive and well in the theological scene of the late 20th and turn of the 21st century.

Usage of the term became much more prominent in 2006–08, as a backlash against increasing usage of the word Islamofascism by conservatives in the U.S., for example David Horowitz.

[Arsenium DeLight]

National Catholicism (Nacionalcatolicismo) was part of the ideological identity of Francoism, the dictatorial regime with which Francisco Franco governed Spain between 1936 and 1975. Its most visible manifestation was the hegemony that the Catholic Church had in all aspects of public and private life. As a symbol of the ideological divisions within Francoism, it can be compared to National syndicalism (nacionalsindicalismo), an essential component of the ideology and political practice of the Falangists.

In the 1920s France, Édouard Castelnau's Fédération nationale catholique advanced a similar model. Although it reached one million members in 1925, it was of short-lived significance, subsiding into obscurity by 1930.

In the 1930s and 40s, Ante Pavelić's Croatian Ustaše movement espoused a similar ideology, although it has been called other names, including "political Catholicism" and "Catholic Croatism". Other countries in central and eastern Europe where similar movements of Franquist inspiration combined Catholicism with nationalism include: Austria, Poland, Lithuania and Slovakia.

[Mortimer]

wait do you want to discuss or just copy and paste because thats boring. do you agree with what i wrote

[Arsenium DeLight]

The Christian world is also known collectively as the Corpus Christianum, a translated as the Christian body, meaning the community of all Christians. The Christian polity, embodying a less secular meaning, can be compatible with the idea of both a religious and a temporal body: Corpus Christianum. The Corpus Christianum can be seen as a Christian equivalent of the Muslim Ummah.

[Arsenium DeLight]

Christianity was able to spread because it was adopted as state religion by the roman empire and also sometimes spread with force and sword, and because in middle ages the peasants followed the rites and religions of the monarch so if you convinced the monarch to baptise to christianity he made the whole country christian, so you needed to convince only one man. Other religions and even other christian sects were outlawed and sometimes persecuted which secured uniformity of religion. In 21st century it is hard to imagine such a concept of uniformity of religion in europe or west where secularism, pluralism of ideas and lifestyles exist etc. and all religions compete with eatch other for "souls", you would need a theocracy and outlaw other religions to succesfully spread ONE european religion otherwise people are divided in their faiths and world views (pluralism). There is not state religion in most european countries or the usa etc. there is freedom of religion and thought and expression etc. if someone wants to believe there are always others who would ridicule him and vice versa etc. blasphemy is not outlawed etc. which would be neccessary to keep a holy doctrine etc. In current europe and usa, west etc. i see a unified pan-european religion as quiete unrealistic. But you dont need a religion to be unified, solely being white nationalist unifies them already. if they have pan-identity as white. their faith is based on the blood and soil (hitler) not on a god

Most people need a guide to live by correctly - in the interests of their own nation states and its native inhabitants.
Most people don't think what the state of their country will be in 4-5 generations. They need direction. This is where religion or something similar to it can be helpful.

I don't think Europe needs faith in ancient myths but I do envy religiosity as a phenomenon. I prefer a secular humanist Europe over a Christofascist Europe anytime, nonetheless it is worthwhile to incorporate elements of worship, reverence, ceremony, sense of community etc, which religion readily provides for people.

If there were a secular, humanist, nationalist, communitarian Pan-Europeanist movement, I would gladly join it. But unfortunately most nationalist movements in Europe are tainted with Christianity.

[Arsenium DeLight]

wait do you want to discuss or just copy and paste because thats boring. do you agree with what i wrote

of course, I just wanted to collect more information relevant to the topic, so that we can have a better discussion.

[Mortimer]

of course, I just wanted to collect more information relevant to the topic, so that we can have a better discussion.

you should have collected the most relevant information for your topic in your OP, now what you do looks as if you are spamming and it is hard to follow your topic (just a friendly talk as your friend)

[Mortimer]

Most people need a guide to live by correctly - in the interests of their own nation states and its native inhabitants.
Most people don't think what the state of their country will be in 4-5 generations. They need direction. This is where religion or something similar to it can be helpful.

I prefer a secular humanist Europe over a Christofascist Europe anytime, nonetheless it is worthwhile to incorporate elements of worship, reverence, ceremony, sense of community etc, which religion readily provides for people.

If there were a secular, humanist, nationalist, Pan-Europeanist movement, I would gladly join it. But unfortunately most nationalist movements in Europe are tainted with Christianity.

i think fawscism and religion are a oxymoron to be honest. i mean worship and ceremony just for fascism or to bind a community has nothing to do with spirituality, truth seeking and trying to connect to the supernatural etc. it is rather materialistic etc. i mean fascism i see as materialistic which gives themselfes a religious outlook they use christian symbols and words but it has not the spirit in it the holy spirit etc. or anything to do with truth or how the world was created etc. and what is our purpose in this life and about the afterlife. but there can be symbols, flags, worship etc. in a other way too like you worship your lead (person worship) and you have the swastika flag, and you believe in white supremacy etc. i doesnt need to do with god, and everyone can believe in the god he wants as long he also believes in white unity etc. i dont see it as oxymoron really because i treat religion as private and way to advance your conscious

[Leo Iscariot]

No.

[Ctwentysevenj]

The new European religion is Atheism

[Empecinado]

National Catholicism (Nacionalcatolicismo) was part of the ideological identity of Francoism, the dictatorial regime with which Francisco Franco governed Spain between 1936 and 1975. Its most visible manifestation was the hegemony that the Catholic Church had in all aspects of public and private life. As a symbol of the ideological divisions within Francoism, it can be compared to National syndicalism (nacionalsindicalismo), an essential component of the ideology and political practice of the Falangists.

In the 1920s France, Édouard Castelnau's Fédération nationale catholique advanced a similar model. Although it reached one million members in 1925, it was of short-lived significance, subsiding into obscurity by 1930.

In the 1930s and 40s, Ante Pavelić's Croatian Ustaše movement espoused a similar ideology, although it has been called other names, including "political Catholicism" and "Catholic Croatism". Other countries in central and eastern Europe where similar movements of Franquist inspiration combined Catholicism with nationalism include: Austria, Poland, Lithuania and Slovakia.

Yes but relationship of Francoism with Vatican was always very bad, especially after the 2nd Vatican Council and after the 60s. Arias Navarro, the prime minister, said that bishops and Vatican were "rabble that hate Spain".

[Hithaeglir]

It exists already. It's called catholicism:



Not all european countries are Catholic.

[KawaiiKawaii]

Why is there a need for anything pan-European, be it religion, music, language, union? There are nations in Europe which have their own everything, no need for these meaningless pan-European "things". Religion is slowly dying anyway.

[Damião de Góis]

Not all european countries are Catholic.

Yeah but it's the closest thing you'll have to a pan-european religion: it's the most widespread religion in Europe.

[wvwvw]

Christianity is not a European religion and its religious doctrine doesn't preach nationalism. I don't think Christianity is compatible with Europe as well as Islam is compatible with Arab nationalism.

Yes it is. It was Europeans that shaped Christianity as we know it today.

[wvwvw]

Secular humanism is the religion of Europe from which Christinity has been greatly influenced.

[wvwvw]

I said Catholic specifically, not Christian.

Why Catholic specifically? Eastern Orthodoxity is every bit European as Catholicism, and Russia (a totally European civilization with great contributions to Europe) used to be a European power and a world Empire.

[Brzęczyszczykiewiczówna]

Yes, Catholicism in all Europe.

[Beit El]

No, ideally there should be no religion in Europe and the Western world :

-shitty images-

These images were made by militant and narrow-minded anti-theists who believe that the only religions in existence are the Abrahamic religions and that no religion can possibly coexist with a scientific world view, even though science only deals with the material and not the metaphysical.

[wvwvw]

Not only is it a European religion, but also one of the main causes of the birth, formation and definition of Europe.

+1

Music, arhitecture, medieval art etc are all influenced by Christianity.

[Beit El]

+1

Music, arhitecture, medieval art etc are all influenced by Christianity.

So this music, these architectural styles and medieval art were placed on earth directly by God himself and didn't already exist before Christ in any way, shape or proto-form?

[RandoBloom]

Renounce bullshit, accept Bosnian church into your lives
http://crkvabosanska.weebly.com/uploads/4/2/4/4/4244718/4233324_orig.jpg

[Damião de Góis]

Why Catholic specifically? Eastern Orthodoxity is every bit European as Catholicism, and Russia (a totally European civilization with great contributions to Europe) used to be a European power and a world Empire.

I just said that in the context of this thread, since if you look at the map in the first page.. you'll see it covers a bigger area than the rest.

[TheForeigner]

Christianity itself isn't the problem, it's what it's become.. The evangelical and anglican bibles you see today were regarded as the books of Satan by the populations of the very nations that published them.
What do you mean by this?

[TheForeigner]

Renounce bullshit, accept Bosnian church into your lives
http://crkvabosanska.weebly.com/uploads/4/2/4/4/4244718/4233324_orig.jpg

Why don't you revive the Bosnian church to replace Islam and maybe even unite bosnians(including croat and serb ones maybe) with it?

[TheForeigner]

Why is there a need for anything pan-European, be it religion, music, language, union? There are nations in Europe which have their own everything, no need for these meaningless pan-European "things". Religion is slowly dying anyway.

Switzerland doesn't have a true uniffied national culture or identity. Funny you would be against pan-european things. Switzerland is from it's beginings pan-european.

[RandoBloom]

Why don't you revive the Bosnian church to replace Islam and maybe even unite bosnians(including croat and serb ones maybe) with it?

Because uniting with them would destroy Bosniak purity
Also teachings are lost

[TheForeigner]

Because uniting with them would destroy Bosniak purity
Also teachings are lost

Aren't you all the same mix of illyro-romans/vlachs and slavs?

[KawaiiKawaii]

Switzerland doesn't have a true uniffied national culture or identity. Funny you would be against pan-european things. Switzerland is from it's beginings pan-european.

I won't teach third world peasants Swiss history, so I'll accept your stupid response.

What I can see is that this pan-European bullshit comes mainly from insecure nations who didn't had independence for a long time and who wish to be subjugated again by more powerful ones. Pan-Europeanists are bound to fail and to throw us all in a Third World War.

[TheForeigner]

I won't teach third world peasants Swiss history, so I'll accept your stupid response.

What I can see is that this pan-European bullshit comes mainly from insecure nations who didn't had independence for a long time and who wish to be subjugated again by more powerful ones. Pan-Europeanists are bound to fail and to throw us all in a Third World War.
You are just an arrogant and ignorant swine, who likes to insult people on the internet, to make himself feel better. You and Ars Moriendi must be butt buddies irl.

[KawaiiKawaii]

You are just an arrogant and ignorant swine, who likes to insult people on the internet, to make himself feel better. You and Ars Moriendi must be butt buddies irl.

I'm not an arrogant and ignorant swine, nor do I like insulting people on the internet, I'm just telling you that Pan-Europeanism is a doctrine used by insignificant failed nations not to fix their own problems alone and to look for grandeur in the success of others. Not for me, but surely in Romania it might be popular.

[wvwvw]

I'm not an arrogant and ignorant swine, nor do I like insulting people on the internet, I'm just telling you that Pan-Europeanism is a doctrine used by insignificant failed nations not to fix their own problems alone and to look for grandeur in the success of others. Not for me, but surely in Romania it might be popular.

Pan-Europeanism, at least the way you mean it, is a doctrine envisioned by the multi-national corporations of Western Europe especially, in order to exploit the poorer nations of Eastern Europe. (by paying them slave wages etc)

The purpose is to create pan-european banks, and instititions where a minority of bankers will be able to bypass the democratic elected european governments and decide on behalf of european citizens without requiring their consent.

[wvwvw]

I'm not an arrogant and ignorant swine, nor do I like insulting people on the internet, I'm just telling you that Pan-Europeanism is a doctrine used by insignificant failed nations not to fix their own problems alone and to look for grandeur in the success of others. Not for me, but surely in Romania it might be popular.

Countries like Romania are not insignificant failed nations, but rather failed social experments of a failed political system (communism).

They don't need to seek 'grandeur in the success of others', they are more hard-working people than most Western Europeans, they just want the place they deserve and the recognition they deserve in the European family and to show what a great potential their unterrated country has. They just want ignorant Western Europeans who often confuse Roma culture with Romanian culture to know more about them, nothing wrong with that.

[KawaiiKawaii]

Countries like Romania are not insignificant failed nations, but rather failed social experments of a failed political system (communism).

They don't need to seek 'grandeur in the success of others', they are more hard-working people than most Western Europeans, they just want the place they deserve and the recognition they deserve in the European family and to show what a great potential their unterrated country has. They just want ignorant Western Europeans who often confuse Roma culture with Romanian culture to know more about them, nothing wrong with that.

Why is being part of the European family so important? The thing is, I noticed it, these countries made numerous reforms in the past not because they thought they were the best, but to please the various eurocrats, to get in the EU. They did not think about these reforms as something natural for them in order to improve their own lives, as well as their citizens', but just to get in the club, to be part of the family. This is wrong. You are not part of the family because you obey the family, you are part of it because you feel a feeling of belonging to the same civilization sphere. This is where, according to me, there seems to be a problem. They will never be part of the family because they write some laws on a piece of paper, they will be part of the family when they see themselves as belonging to this family and bringing it something, a contribution.

[wvwvw]

Why is being part of the European family so important? The thing is, I noticed it, these countries made numerous reforms in the past not because they thought they were the best, but to please the various eurocrats, to get in the EU. They did not think about these reforms as something natural for them in order to improve their own lives, as well as their citizens', but just to get in the club, to be part of the family. This is wrong. You are not part of the family because you obey the family, you are part of it because you feel a feeling of belonging to the same civilization sphere. This is where, according to me, there seems to be a problem. They will never be part of the family because they write some laws on a piece of paper, they will be part of the family when they see themselves as belonging to this family and bringing it something, a contribution.

For rich Western European countries to be part of the European family is not important because they are always on the spotlight. But, for countries like Romania, it provides a platform to make themselves known to the world, attract more investments which in turn create more jobs, and thus improve the living standards of Romanians.

Also Romania is a very unterrated country. Many who have visited it have been positively surprised and felt stupid for thinking Romania is "nothing like us".

Of course Romanians and the countries of Eastern Europe wanted reform more than anything else (otherwise why else would they overthrow their dictator) and certainly not to please the EU beaurocrats only. They only disagreed with the pace of the reforms. The EU demanded rapid reforms from them, and rapid reforms carry a great societal cost. It is not as easy as it sounds.

[Arsenium DeLight]

Can a European Union become a world superpower without a religion?

The European Union (EU) has been called an emerging superpower of the 21st century by academics (http://books.google.ca/books?id=sbi7eVIcyD4C&printsec=frontcover&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false).

Mark Leonard cites several factors (http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/60708/stanley-hoffmann/why-europe-will-run-the-21st-century): the EU's large population, large economy (the EU has the largest economy in the world), low inflation rates, the unpopularity and perceived failure of US foreign policy in recent years, and certain EU member states' high quality of life (especially when measured in terms such as hours worked per week, health care, social services).

Why can Europe not form a superpower on the world stage as America and Russia are?

John McCormick (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCormick_(political_scientist)) believes that the EU has already achieved superpower status, based on the size and global reach of its economy and on its global political influence. He argues that the nature of power has changed since the Cold War-driven definition of superpower was developed, and that military power is no longer essential to great power; he argues that control of the means of production is more important than control of the means of destruction, and contrasts the threatening hard power of the United States with the opportunities offered by the soft power wielded by the European Union.

[KawaiiKawaii]

For rich Western European countries to be part of the European family is not important because they are always on the spotlight. But, for countries like Romania, it provides a platform to make themselves known to the world, attract more investments which in turn create more jobs, and thus improve the living standards of Romanians.

Also Romania is a very unterrated country. Many who have visited it have been positively surprised and felt stupid for thinking Romania is "nothing like us".

Of course Romanians and the countries of Eastern Europe wanted reform more than anything else (otherwise why else would they overthrow their dictator) and certainly not to please the EU beaurocrats only. They only disagreed with the pace of the reforms. The EU demanded rapid reforms from them, and rapid reforms carry a great societal cost. It is not as easy as it sounds.

Why not be known thanks to them being Romanian and inventing, production, creating something Romanian? Why this need to put a Euro label?

I understand that they are underrated, but maybe they should give a more positive image than the one they have one, through culture, create a company, etc? Koreans did that, in the 80's they were extremely poor, and look at them now! This without any kind of "We are Europeans!".

The pace of reforms? They are still extremely corrupt, economically they are not doing good, massive emigration, etc. etc. They did the reforms on paper, but mentally they still haven't changer, from what I see.

[Arsenium DeLight]

What is Pan-Europeanism really?


Europeanism is a term that encapsulates the norms and values that Europeans have in common, and which transcend national or state identity. In addition to helping promote the integration of the European Union, this doctrine also provides the basis for analyses that characterise European politics, economics, and society as reflecting a shared identity. Opponents to the idea stress that there are various differences among European groups and that the factors seen as characteristic of this shared culture do not necessarily follow its premise.


Pan-Europeanism refers to several ideologies, but in general to a normative belief in some form of European geopolitical, cultural, ethnic or racial entity. Pan-Europeanism may imply political action on the basis of common traits recognized in European people, countries and cultures, and on the basis of intimate intra-European international relations - their inclusion in the European Constitution, for instance.

In the strict sense, pan-Europeanism is a form of pan-nationalism seeking to promote some form of European unity, in some cases implying the constitution of a European state or geopolitical entity of sorts. Early pan-Europeanist organisations, such as the early International Paneuropean Union, competed with other pan-nationalist ideals such as pan-Germanism. After the Second World War, the European Economic Community and its successor the European Union came to be seen as the only path to European integration, and other pan-Europeanist ideas were marginalised.

Recently, the term pan-European has been used within the European Union, to designate activities at EU, rather than national, level. The 2009 European elections, for instance are only open to pan-European political parties, although most of them are alliances of existing national parties.

[Arsenium DeLight]

Why is being part of the European family so important? The thing is, I noticed it, these countries made numerous reforms in the past not because they thought they were the best, but to please the various eurocrats, to get in the EU. They did not think about these reforms as something natural for them in order to improve their own lives, as well as their citizens', but just to get in the club, to be part of the family. This is wrong. You are not part of the family because you obey the family, you are part of it because you feel a feeling of belonging to the same civilization sphere. This is where, according to me, there seems to be a problem. They will never be part of the family because they write some laws on a piece of paper, they will be part of the family when they see themselves as belonging to this family and bringing it something, a contribution.

I agree with you that being part of a European family is not something you choose; you are part of it by virtue of being a European. There is strength in unity: e pluribus unum, and unity should be based on non-arbitrary attributes, such a blood, values, philosophy, and ideology.

Forget about the EU for a moment, the EU can be reformed or cease to exist altogether if the member states so chose. Think about a greater union of Europeans whose fundamental ideology is Europeanism (as explained above). Think of a United States of Europe, in which each individual state preserves its own national and cultural identity, but they share a Europeanist ideology, a common cause, and adhere to certain mutually agreed upon values and policies such as communitarianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communitarianism), cosmopolitanism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmopolitanism), wellfarism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfarism), secularism, perpetual peace, and multilateralism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multilateralism).

[wvwvw]

Why not be known thanks to them being Romanian and inventing, production, creating something Romanian? Why this need to put a Euro label?

I understand that they are underrated, but maybe they should give a more positive image than the one they have one, through culture, create a company, etc? Koreans did that, in the 80's they were extremely poor, and look at them now! This without any kind of "We are Europeans!".

The pace of reforms? They are still extremely corrupt, economically they are not doing good, massive emigration, etc. etc. They did the reforms on paper, but mentally they still haven't changer, from what I see.

There have been many Romanian inventions, you are just not aware of them because you don't know much about Romania. Eastern European countries were successful even under communism, it was the collapse of communism that devastated their economies.

Obviously they don't want the Euro label in itself, they want the opportunities that the common market offers, as well as the advantages of being members of the EU - from a global perspective. Why do you think Britain stays in the EU although the majority of its citizens are against it? British politicians emphasize that Britain will become irrelevant if it exits the EU. They need the Euro-label to make their voice stronger on the global stage. Without the EU, global powers such as China, USA or Russia wouldn't take the UK as much seriously as they do now (or any European country for that matter). United the EU countries have a strong voice, but individually they are weak. The same goes for USA and NATO.

[KawaiiKawaii]

There have been many Romanian inventions, you are just not aware of them because you don't know much about Romania. Eastern European countries were successful even under communism, it was the collapse of communism that devastated their economies.

Obviously they don't want the Euro label in itself, they want the opportunities that the common market offers, as well as the advantages from being members of the EU - from a global perspective. Why do you think Britain for example stays in the EU although the majority of its citizens are against it? British politicians emphasize that Britain will become irrelevant if it exits the EU. They need the Euro-label to make their voice stronger on the global stage. Without the EU, global powers such as China, USA or Russia wouldn't take the UK as much seriously as they do now (or any European country for that matter). United the EU countries have a strong voice, but individually they are weak. The same goes for USA and NATO.

You do have a point. But I don't think that a European Federation will do any good. But I understand that they want to escape the Communist label and get in the European label. Well, I wish them success.

[Arsenium DeLight]

Should there be a Pan-European ideology or religion? What values must it be based on?

[Arsenium DeLight]

Here are the fundamentals of a more solid European Union.

It's called National Europeanism and the concept of a Biological European Union. It is a worldview within which proponents advocate Europe being united racially and politically as a form of Pan-European nationalism. This view has been present in European culture since at least the Middle Ages (the Roman Empire was possibly an ancestor of the view), and inspired several proposals for some form of confederation. Within the larger current of pan-European thought, there are those who explicitly support the idea that Europe is a single race, and therefore should present a united front.

[Comte Arnau]

Not entirely as the word Europe came from the Greeks.

By concept I wasn't referring to the term. Ancient Greece is the first of the European pillars, but not the foundation. Historically, the Hellenic sphere had always been the East Mediterranean, and when it spread, it did it into the Near East, Eastern Europe and NE Africa.


I don't see why the Greco-Roman world could only have been saved by a sect of Judaism. What did the belief in Jesus' divinity have to do with European nationalism.

The Greco-Roman were the pillars due to what was to come later, but their focus was on the Mediterranean -the civilized areas- rather than the cold north of Europe. It was only after the acceptance of the new religion, the spread of it in a modified officialized way and the "participation in the game" of the Northern 'Barbarians', that a real civilized proto-Europe begins. The schism will just confirm the constant split between Western and Eastern Europe, but the concept of a whole Europe begins to be there.

Christian faith -and the liturgy languages (Latin and Koine Greek/Church Slavonic) to a certain point- was a cohesive bound to European peoples of quite different stock, language and lifestyle.


And what Christian religious doctrine exactly helped shape Europe?

The Roman Catholic and the Greek Orthodox ones, of course, but specially the first one due to later events. I include the Protestants in the first one as a historical reform of it, which would actually be positive for the development of many of those later events that would lead to define Europe even more consistently with regard to other civilizations.


What is it that Christianity accomplished for Europe that a pagan or ancestry-worshipping religion couldn't have done. Are you suggesting that Christianity is the most optimal religion for the task of unifying Europe? How do you know that pagan cults or heathenry wouldn't have been able to accomplish this and possibly more.

I do not know and none of us will ever know. I just refer to the events that took place. What I know is that the arrival of a different belief, a monotheistic one, seemed appealing to many. And the fact that it was associated with a different type of power, closer to your average Joe, probably helped its spread upon the masses. It only had to receive the consent of the Emperor to become even more accepted. We'll never be sure, but I personally doubt that a whole pagan pantheon would have spread that easily. Probably because people find it easier to focus on one single charismatic figure rather than on a whole set of gods, which would have ended up with different nations focusing on one god or the other.


Christianity is a meek and mild religion. It isn't as political, totalitarian, overarching as a unifying religion should be for Europe.

I disagree. Christianity has proved to be quite totalitarian too until quite recently.


Europe could have formed a new Empire after the fall of the Roman Empire but apparently Christianity didn't accomplish this.

I disagree again. You only have to look at a map of the world to see that, if there is one 'Empire' that has conquered the world, that is Western Christian Europe, reshaping the lifestyle of almost every nation all over the globe.


I envision a religion shaped with the interests of Europe and its people in mind which could be more beneficial for Europeans than Christianity ever was and ever will be.

Why not. But I am not a religious guy, and I personally prefer to keep secularism and leave the religious aspects to a private personal sphere. Europe has taken profit from post-Enlightenment ideas in a way that have proved to be much more beneficial for us as individuals. I see religion and faith as existential elements that can be good for people at an individual level, just as many philosophical doctrines can be good too in the same way, but I don't see why they should interfere in the politics of states. Respect for your past and what has shaped your civilization does not mean you should follow with it in the same way.

[wvwvw]

So this music, these architectural styles and medieval art were placed on earth directly by God himself and didn't already exist before Christ in any way, shape or proto-form?

Christianity influenced the European art, architecture and music that already existed. For better or worse Europe as we know it today wouldn't be the same without Christianity.

[wvwvw]

By concept I wasn't referring to the term. Ancient Greece is the first of the European pillars, but not the foundation. Historically, the Hellenic sphere had always been the East Mediterranean, and when it spread, it did it into the Near East, Eastern Europe and NE Africa.

The Greco-Roman were the pillars due to what was to come later, but their focus was on the Mediterranean -the civilized areas- rather than the cold north of Europe. It was only after the acceptance of the new religion, the spread of it in a modified officialized way and the "participation in the game" of the Northern 'Barbarians', that a real civilized proto-Europe begins. The schism will just confirm the constant split between Western and Eastern Europe, but the concept of a whole Europe begins to be there.

Christian faith -and the liturgy languages (Latin and Koine Greek/Church Slavonic) to a certain point- was a cohesive bound to European peoples of quite different stock, language and lifestyle.

The Roman Catholic and the Greek Orthodox ones, of course, but specially the first one due to later events. I include the Protestants in the first one as a historical reform of it, which would actually be positive for the development of many of those later events that would lead to define Europe even more consistently with regard to other civilizations.

I do not know and none of us will ever know. I just refer to the events that took place. What I know is that the arrival of a different belief, a monotheistic one, seemed appealing to many. And the fact that it was associated with a different type of power, closer to your average Joe, probably helped its spread upon the masses. It only had to receive the consent of the Emperor to become even more accepted. We'll never be sure, but I personally doubt that a whole pagan pantheon would have spread that easily. Probably because people find it easier to focus on one single charismatic figure rather than on a whole set of gods, which would have ended up with different nations focusing on one god or the other.

I disagree. Christianity has proved to be quite totalitarian too until quite recently.

I disagree again. You only have to look at a map of the world to see that, if there is one 'Empire' that has conquered the world, that is Western Christian Europe, reshaping the lifestyle of almost every nation all over the globe.

Why not. But I am not a religious guy, and I personally prefer to keep secularism and leave the religious aspects to a private personal sphere. Europe has taken profit from post-Enlightenment ideas in a way that have proved to be much more beneficial for us as individuals. I see religion and faith as existential elements that can be good for people at an individual level, just as many philosophical doctrines can be good too in the same way, but I don't see why they should interfere in the politics of states. Respect for your past and what has shaped your civilization does not mean you should follow with it in the same way.

It spread to the West too via the Romans and later in the middle ages from the wave of Greek intellectuals that escaped westwards.

Thomas Jefferson and the Influence of Greek ideals and culture in writting the American constitution:

http://intraweb.stockton.edu/eyos/arhu/content/docs/djc%20archive/American%20Philhellenism.pdf

[wvwvw]

Thomas Jefferson and the Influence of Greek ideals and culture in writting the American constitution.

Christian Hellenism Byzantion too made its contributions to the ideology of the American republic:

http://intraweb.stockton.edu/eyos/arhu/content/docs/djc%20archive/American%20Philhellenism.pdf

[Comte Arnau]

It spread to the West too via the Romans and later in the middle ages from the wave of Greek intellectuals that escaped westwards.


That's the point. Romans felt little respect for any culture around the Mediterranean other than theirs and the Greek, because of it having been a political and cultural power in the Eastern Med area. The influence was big and many a thing was copied or adapted into the Roman way. And this is mainly the cause why Greece is one of the founding pillars. But had there been no Roman Empire, that important Greek legacy would most probably be unknown today, and Europe would be a totally different thing, maybe a backward territory belonging either to a Muslim or Mongol sphere.

[SardiniaAtlantis]

No. There should be no religion. Besides the worship of myself.

[Hong Key]

The EU was set up to destroy the indigenous peoples of Europe. Our race is very diverse (who needs their version of diversity!) and trying the one shoe fits all approach will not work. Strong individual nations but with a desire to cooperate and not let the anti-Whites genocide us just might work. Poland for the Poles, Wales for the Welsh......

Godfather of the EU Richard Nikolaus von Coudenhove-Kalergi - 1925
The man of the future will be of mixed race. Today's races and classes will gradually disappear owing to the vanishing of space, time, and prejudice. The Eurasian-Negroid race of the future, similar in its appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of individuals.

[Musso]

Catholicism and Protestantism have their roots in Europe, and have been intertwined with European cultures/identities for centuries. So there is no need for a pan-European religion.

[Aviator]

No, Pan-Europeanism is a silly and destructive notion.

[Ivan Kramskoï]

No, Pan-Europeanism is a silly and destructive notion.
At a large scale I agree because it can be destrutive to culture and identity of few populated ethnicity but at a small scale i think it be be very beneficient to us in order to defend ourselves against the scum.

[Aviator]

At a large scale I agree because it can be destrutive to culture and identity of few populated ethnicity but at a small scale i think it be be very beneficient to us in order to defend ourselves against the scum.

Right. Cooperation should definitely be promoted, but a, "We're all European and we're all the same" White Nationalist-like mentality should be avoided.

[Darth Revan]

Pretty easy to make the leap between pan-European and something bigger. Pan-Eurasian or even Global religion.

[sioned]

Should there be a Pan-European ideology or religion? What values must it be based on?


Everything which contain pan-European is something Im not interested in it...

[Unome]

Yes let's reestablish European Pagan Polytheism and overthrow the Abrahamic dogmas!

There is no Christian, Jewish, Moslem God. There are a dozen gods, and all of them above the Abraham God!

[Linebacker]

Best there should be no religion at all.

[Leto]

Right. Cooperation should definitely be promoted, but a, "We're all European and we're all the same" White Nationalist-like mentality should be avoided.
What do you suggest? I'm sure you'd say civic nationalism isn't good either.

[Leto]

Catholicism and Protestantism have their roots in Europe, and have been intertwined with European cultures/identities for centuries. So there is no need for a pan-European religion.
Orthodoxy is also a (mostly) European branch of Christianity. Greece, Romania, Bulgaria, Serbia, East Slavs (plus Georgia).

[Aviator]

What do you suggest? I'm sure you'd say civic nationalism isn't good either.

Each country having its own traditional ethno-nationalism! It's much more realistic and would be just as effective for removing Africans, Muslims, and such from Europe as a whole.

[Leto]

Each country having its own traditional ethno-nationalism! It's much more realistic and would be just as effective for removing Africans, Muslims, and such from Europe as a whole.
North America as well as Australia and New Zealand cannot afford that. The best thing they can do is remain Euro-mutts, which is not bad at all, in my opinion.

[Aviator]

North America as well as Australia and New Zealand cannot afford that. The best thing they can do is remain Euro-mutts, which is not bad at all, in my opinion.

No of course we can't. I'm referring only to countries in Europe.

I also don't think being a Euro-mutt is inherently bad, I just think it would be best for ethnic Europeans as a whole if each European country went back to being ethno-nationalist and proud of itself, instead of trying to create a pan-European ideology or government.

[Kabul]

No, pan-anything is stupid.

[Leto]

No of course we can't. I'm referring only to countries in Europe.

I also don't think being a Euro-mutt is inherently bad, I just think it would be best for ethnic Europeans as a whole if each European country went back to being ethno-nationalist and proud of itself, instead of trying to create a pan-European ideology or government.
Unfortunately, Euro-mutts are becoming increasingly common in Europe as well. They are still less "diverse" than Old Worlders who are, say, 1/4 English, 1/4 German, 1/4 Italian, 1/4 French or something similar, they usually have 2 ethnicities. Serbian/Swedish, German/Polish, British/Italian, etc.

[Shah-Jehan]

Each country having its own traditional ethno-nationalism! It's much more realistic and would be just as effective for removing Africans, Muslims, and such from Europe as a whole.

wouldn't that rather divide up Europe considering indigenous European Muslims in Balkans, Caucasus and Volga-Ural region?:rolleyes:

[Aviator]

wouldn't that rather divide up Europe considering indigenous European Muslims in Balkans, Caucasus and Volga-Ural region?:rolleyes:

Meh, I don't really care about the South-Eastern Wogs, to be honest. Just a bunch of Ottoman left overs.

Besides, if a couple of random nations down there that no one cares about remain Islamic, it's not like it really matters, since we're talking about each country being ethno-nationalist and in it for themselves.

[LightHouse89]

No of course we can't. I'm referring only to countries in Europe.

I also don't think being a Euro-mutt is inherently bad, I just think it would be best for ethnic Europeans as a whole if each European country went back to being ethno-nationalist and proud of itself, instead of trying to create a pan-European ideology or government.

This however would be rational for them to work together and make use of this EU parliament in order to destroy it. Would be nice if white americans broke away from JEWSA

[Ivan Kramskoï]

Unfortunately, Euro-mutts are becoming increasingly common in Europe as well. They are still less "diverse" than Old Worlders who are, say, 1/4 English, 1/4 German, 1/4 Italian, 1/4 French or something similar, they usually have 2 ethnicities. Serbian/Swedish, German/Polish, British/Italian, etc.
A large part of my family is euro mutt including me ^^

[Leto]

Meh, I don't really care about the South-Eastern Wogs, to be honest. Just a bunch of Ottoman left overs.
Only two nations there have Islam - Albania and Bosnia. And even they are not entirely Islamic (substantial Christian minorities) and pretty secularized. The Ottomans didn't impact them genetically in a significant degree.
As for the Caucasus and the Volga-Ural region, that's not really Europe even to me. I couldn't care less about Tatarstan, they are not my country, only nominally.
Edit: non-Muslim Volga people are mostly okay, though.

[Manifest Destiny]

It exists already. It's called catholicism:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/Europe_religion_map_en.png

The sorcerer-pope wants Europe to be non-European:

mashable.com/2014/11/25/pope-europe-immigrants/

[Leto]

It exists already. It's called catholicism:
Kazakhstan is about 75-80% Muslim.

[Damião de Góis]

Kazakhstan is about 75-80% Muslim.

I believe you but that's not my map. It's from wikipedia.

Anyway, my reasoning was that most european countries are catholic, so it's the majority religion.

[Unome]

The sorcerer-pope wants Europe to be non-European:

mashable.com/2014/11/25/pope-europe-immigrants/
European multikulti should be abolished, and all Euros unified into one monolithic culture/religion.

Something opposed to Abrahamism/Christianity/Judaism/Islam, something completely different.

Just cut them all out; they don't belong anyway.

[Lithium]

The rising Neo-Paganism should be the pan-European religion.

[Darth Revan]

The rising Neo-Paganism should be the pan-European religion.

Impressive how you believe that it's 1) Rising, and 2) Anyhow useful or even believable as a religion. There's a reason why old tribal cults dissapeared long ago, and that is not strength and wisdom.

[By Ganio]

Anyway, my reasoning was that most european countries are catholic, so it's the majority religion.

It's plurality, not majority. Orthodox, Protestant or Muslim Europeans combined are more than Catholic Europeans.

[Leto]

A large part of my family is euro mutt including me ^^
Well, the French have always been a civic nation.:rolleyes:

[Leto]

Impressive how you believe that it's 1) Rising, and 2) Anyhow useful or even believable as a religion. There's a reason why old tribal cults dissapeared long ago, and that is not strength and wisdom.
Most "neo-pagans" are just atheists who have a romanticized fairytale-like picture of the distant past.

[Lithium]

Impressive how you believe that it's 1) Rising, and 2) Anyhow useful or even believable as a religion. There's a reason why old tribal cults dissapeared long ago, and that is not strength and wisdom.

The Paganism in Europe was never actually dead, it was just the Abrahamic religion that transformed it into what you call nowadays Christianity.

[Unome]

Neo-pagans are those who recognize that debates about deism/theism are amateur, with the vast majority of people lacking common sense about what should be simple spiritual concepts.

For example, atheists, agnostics, and theists all argue about "existence of god" …without even defining god! That's just retarded. How can you speak about existence of things without clear definitions???

After people start vocalizing and communicating definitions of god then it becomes clear what morality, ethics, spirituality, and religion are about. And these should be reasoned, investigated, and known.


The problem is that 99.9% of humanity is not serious about spirituality, not even those devout religious nuts, who claim to be. They're wrong or misled. They're followers of religion, and avoid learning or thinking too much.

So, yes, neo-paganism owns the future. Abrahamic dogmas, outdated, retarded, useless, these are all subject to change and doubt. The Old World will become a faded memory in time. Those who live in the past, make their coffins & caskets their home, will stay there forever. It's best to walk forward, not backward.

[Darth Revan]

The Paganism in Europe was never actually dead, it was just the Abrahamic religion that transformed it into what you call nowadays Christianity.

What people refer to 'paganism' is just the colourful collection of tribal cults from allover the world. There is hardly any theological difference between the cults of ancient Celts, Germanians, ancient Arabians, Aztecs, or Animist Africans.

What Christainity did, was to transform the mediocre supersitition that existed equally all over the world, into an organized religion, that while preserving a substantial amount of inane ritualism and symbology (dates and festivities being merely updated), at least added a dose of philosophy and introspection.

Christianity is a rapidly dying corpus, that will most likely be replaced by either Islam, or simply non-spiritual worship of consumption (most likely the latter).

New Age hollow cults mixing inane naturalism along with colourful slogans will only be what they are now, quirky features in the complex social tissue, that only qualify as hobbies rather than actual metaphysical codes. Things are only replaced by something that brings something new to the table (consumerism caters more to the pettiness of the lower majority and becomes more attractive that way); not by deceased poetry that proved worthless long ago.

[LightHouse89]

Meh, I don't really care about the South-Eastern Wogs, to be honest. Just a bunch of Ottoman left overs.

Besides, if a couple of random nations down there that no one cares about remain Islamic, it's not like it really matters, since we're talking about each country being ethno-nationalist and in it for themselves.

I admire them though. They are rather xenophobic. I just think they tend to be a bit backwards. I am no fan of wogs myself but I don't actually hate them or anything. I think we have to realize that when we become ethno-nationalists we should work with one another or support one another because we all have a similar objective. We need to think militaristically not 'independently'. Maybe strategically is a better term for what I mean. I se 90% of Europeans as foreigners and I don't want them here either as they wouldn't want millions of white americans in Europe to begin with.

I hate the term 'white nationalism' as it does not have much of a meaning. I understand 'Euros' of the genetic and cultural kind wish to work together however the term 'white' is a term we should shun.

[LightHouse89]

What people refer to 'paganism' is just the colourful collection of tribal cults from allover the world. There is hardly any theological difference between the cults of ancient Celts, Germanians, ancient Arabians, Aztecs, or Animist Africans.

What Christainity did, was to transform the mediocre supersitition that existed equally all over the world, into an organized religion, that while preserving a substantial amount of inane ritualism and symbology (dates and festivities being merely updated), at least added a dose of philosophy and introspection.

Christianity is a rapidly dying corpus, that will most likely be replaced by either Islam, or simply non-spiritual worship of consumption (most likely the latter).

New Age hollow cults mixing inane naturalism along with colourful slogans will only be what they are now, quirky features in the complex social tissue, that only qualify as hobbies rather than actual metaphysical codes. Things are only replaced by something that brings something new to the table (consumerism caters more to the pettiness of the lower majority and becomes more attractive that way); not by deceased poetry that proved worthless long ago.

Christianity where I live is being replaced with Radical Atheism. Not even muslims here are religious. I detest modern morals, secularism and foreign ideologies. Everyone has an agenda and the world wouldn't hesitate to destroy me or my kind [whats left of us here]. I rejoice when I hear on the news of abortion clinics getting bombed or attacked as I see there is still Christian resistance here to 'modernism' however it is not enough to restore that religion as a whole here.

I often wish I could build an ark and gather with me the majority of religious WASPs here and just depart. I believe my nation is beyond lost. Secularism was the first symptom of the disease and then came other symptoms such as cultural pluralism [created by American Jewry with the help and support of the nation's minorities be them whatever ethnic origin] and now radical Evolutionary Atheism. All products of liberalism and Plutocratic modernism. These ideologies are destined to fail as they lack any spiritual or meaningful purpose. One thing that cannot disappear it seems is Identity and when this secular government falls the society as a whole will fall apart and break out in chaos and insanity.

I firmly believe this nation is the perfect example as to why Multiculturalism is cultural and ethnic suicide. Its worse than a weapon of mass destruction. I would prefer if the people who came in the droves did so with fire and sword and not Plutocrats importing them. I hope in the end the plutocrats who are responsible for all of it get what they rightfully deserve.

[Kabul]

wouldn't that rather divide up Europe considering indigenous European Muslims in Balkans, Caucasus and Volga-Ural region?:rolleyes:

There are no indigenous Muslims in the Balkans.

[LightHouse89]

The sorcerer-pope wants Europe to be non-European:

mashable.com/2014/11/25/pope-europe-immigrants/

You wonder why I left the catholic faith? The bible even says that God does not approve of race mixing. Well in the sense of people losing identity and culture. The story of Babel is also another example at God's displeasure with multiculturalism. We are repeating the past and it will result in our utter destruction. America is the new Babel and the Whore of Babylon.

There I a reason our forefathers were anti multiculturalism and even against the idea of importing foreign racial stock here. Did the Plutocrats during the period of the Civil War and after pay any mind to what our founding fathers said? No! Infact our government has done everything to go against them since the civil war. America died on the fields of Gettysburg. After that the nation went down hill. We are just living in a post period of time where things will change even more as they have done since then. This isn't our country and we are foolish to accept American civic nationalism. We should everything to reject it.

At least the American traditional religions exist. I am glad I stand against the papacy, Islam, secular liberalism and radical atheist ideology. All of them seek our over all destruction and to think any of them are our friends is naïve if not stupid.