Clouseau

[QUOTE=Chris Weimer;4532803]So do I, and that is arrant nonsense. Many Americans seem to have had lobotomy, anyway, as is not uncommonly observed in Britain.

Would you mind doing me the favour (or favor) of reading my posts, and also not racking up a fantastic bill for wasting my time?

Chris Weimer

No, sorry, I was thinking one thing, and writing another, somewhat confused by your later posts (they appear non sequitur with the rest of what you were saying).

Let me put it this way - in America, atheism is not openly tolerated. It gets better now, but atheists still are in unfavorable light. While we cannot be openly discriminated, we still are. More than half of the American populace said they would not vote for an atheist president.

Do you think any mainstream candidate for American presidency will announce their atheism? They wouldn't have a fighting chance if they did.

Likewise for gay candidates.

Clouseau

[QUOTE=Chris Weimer;4532843] That's ok.

Yes, there are several conversations going on.

But which president has declared it illegal? That is the context- official censorship.

Chris Weimer

Now I'm lost. Why is the official censorship of Naziism in Germany not acceptable to you, nor is the unofficial censorship of atheism in America?

ksen

It's not really censorship if it's not official.

Clouseau

It is libel that is to be censored.

Chris Weimer

Saying "seig heil" is libel?

mountainman

From elsewhere:

Yes, for a start it is saying that there are people who are in
fact convinced that the "Constantine Bible" is not any form
of compelling uncomparable wholeness, rather a fabrication,
a fiction and a monstrous tale.

History tells us that Julian did was himself censored by the
Bishop Cyril of Alexandria, and not the other way around.
In fact, perhaps the most astounding thing that mainstream
dogma needs to understand, is that Cyril is not refuting the
faith of Julian, but Julian's treatise (presumably entitled)
"Against the Galilaeans". Cyril starts by claiming Julian is
essentially "making up lies". This wont do, today.


The emperors were largely a bunch of uneducated mafia thugs.
You are not really telling me anything here. They were slave
masters on the grandest of scales; enactors of genocide.

You keep asserting this paragraph about the compelling
uncomparable organic wholeness, without any external
evidence, as an admirer of art pointing at a bad painting.

The new testament is a fiction of men composed by wickedness.
This assessment, of the emperor Julian, is not wihout merit.
He was after all, the very first voice of opposition that was
capable of speaking out against whatever initiatives Constantine
had put in place. Between 337 and 360, Constantius II mearly
kept the status quo.

So the very first political words to be published against
Constantine's tradition-breaking "bible" was that it was:

* a fabrication
* a fiction of men composed by wickedness.
* a monstrous tale

Why would the opposition to a new and strange 4th century
Roman religious order be saying this specific thing, immediately
at their very first opportunity of providing independent
comments about their view, and considered opinion of,
the ("Constantine") Bible?

Roger Pearse

Actually I responded to your curious statement that no intellectual could ever censor. If you meant to say "no intellectual could ever decide to pass and enforce laws restricting what people were allowed to read or say", well again I refer you to political correctness. And you could look down the years and see that, as a rule, censorship has been devised by and enforced by intellectuals. And why should it not be?

Not much. Try expressing in public any view of which the establishment *really* disapprove and see how far you get.

You need to discuss this opinion with David Irving if you can get access to his cell and see if he agrees with you.

Actually I have on my shelves a Biggles novel which has been expurgated of 'racist references' (much to my annoyance once I realised). Books have been removed from public libraries.

The idea that PC is not enforcing a censorship of what is published, what can appear on TV, what people are allowed to say and not say, well, that seems very odd to me. Try expressing non-PC views at a job interview for a public sector role. Then try expressing PC ones. See what happens.

If your argument is that it isn't censorship when there is no actual law, well, are we really interested in the mechanism so much as the effect?

But pardon me; all this is rather far from my interests, and indeed the point originally made.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

mountainman

Quoting the blessed Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria,
writing to the very pious emperor Theodosius (another despot)
devoted to Christ:

Noone has yet established Julian was lying.
The Blessed Bishop Cyril asserts it, but this
only raises suspicion that Cyril, and his sponsor,
had something to hide.

If Julian was telling everyone that Christianity had been
created and invented by Constantine, it would be a little
disappointing for the recruitment department, because
even illiterate slaves understood what a fiction was.



In this way, Cyril needs to talk of fiction of men once.
Once and once only. He does not return to the thing that
Julian had threaded right through his treatise.

It would appear that Julian talked about the fiction
all the way through his original three books, and it is not
at all impossible that he named the wicked men..