Do you believe in God, deities, souls, spirits & things like that?

[Tiger]

Ah would you ever give it a rest with that shite



Your Catholic brother believes that someone who doesn't believe in your God story CANNOT be moral, has no morality. And you agree with him. How is that not dehumanising?

Poor James.

He can’t follow any discussion. Utterly hopeless.

 

[Tiger]

So why are you a follower of such a man?

Some people deserve to be beaten Myles.

Would your shrinking brain disagree with this?

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

Are there not better ways to deal with disagreeable people than wanton violence?

 

[AN2]

Poor James.

He can’t follow any discussion. Utterly hopeless.

lofl How could it be any clearer? Here's the quote of yours from just yesterday* that I provided to @Clean and free -

While atheists can have no objection to what this poor girl did. Those of us with morality are still disgusted by this.

It's clear, you don't believe that atheists have morality, and it's not just atheists (I think you called Muslims Godless a few posts ago in this thread), it's anyone who doesn't believe in your personal God story

*There are many such cases and like I said, hate-filled, dehumanising Christians (chortle) like you are a dime a dozen

 

[Tiger]

Are there not better ways to deal with disagreeable people than wanton violence?

It depends on what you mean by ‘disagreeable people’.

Is some who raped your daughter a ‘disagreeable person’ ?

 

[Tiger]

lofl How could it be any clearer? Here's the quote of yours from just yesterday* that I provided to @Clean and free -

While atheists can have no objection to what this poor girl did. Those of us with morality are still disgusted by this.

It's clear, you don't believe that atheists have morality, and it's not just atheists (I think you called Muslims Godless a few posts ago in this thread), it's anyone who doesn't believe in your personal God story

*There are many such cases and like I said, hate-filled, dehumanising Christians (chortle) like you are a dime a dozen

I don't think that atheists can’t have superficial morality in the basic understanding of moderate behaviour; what I think is, that without a guiding, transcendent force, morality becomes fluid and subjective—essentially whatever a society or individual deems acceptable at a given moment which results in people like the girl in the video not having any strong morality and stinking the place out with publicly sleeping with 100 men. It’s not grounded in anything permanent or universal, and thus it’s unreliable and malleable.

Many of my close (atheist) friends objected to killing Irish babies in 2012, but by the time the referendum rolled around in 2018, they were happily supporting what the main stream media wanted them to support which was killing beautiful Irish babies in the thousands or tens of thousands every year. As seen with the likes of Jambo, Myles and Fishalt.

You can’t have real moral clarity, if you’re constantly shifting the goalposts based on personal or cultural whims. It's possible to be 'moral' in terms of behaviour as an atheist, but inevitably without any moral compass people like this girl and the other thousands of girls on 'Only Fans; will subject themselves to degeneracy publicly, supported by thousands of online clients like James, Myles and Fishalt; who all are likely members of 'Onlyfans'.

Take the case of the girl I linked to, who slept with 100 men in one day. With a solid moral and religious background, something like this would likely not even be considered, let alone celebrated. It’s clear that in the absence of strong moral foundations, anything becomes permissible. In all likelihood this poor girl is lacking a strong male influence—an absent father figure—who might have taught her self-respect and the value of dignity. This is the kind of disintegration you get when you remove the guiding force of a higher moral law. Celebrating her does nothing for your cause.

Absent fathers have significant, life lasting effects on their offspring which they carry throughout life. Look at James and Fishalt for example.

As for your 'hate-filled, dehumanizing Christians' jab? I’d suggest taking a look in the mirror. It’s ironic that you’re throwing around insults instead of addressing any actual points. The fact that you can’t engage in any meaningful dialogue beyond mockery just exposes the hollowness of your argument. You’re not debating—you’re deflecting, and it’s becoming painfully obvious

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

It depends on what you mean by ‘disagreeable people’. Is some who raped your daughter a ‘disagreeable person’ ?

Did Jesus beat a rapist?

 

[AN2]

I don't think that atheists can’t have superficial morality in the basic understanding of moderate behaviour; what I think is, that without a guiding, transcendent force, morality becomes fluid and subjective—essentially whatever a society or individual deems acceptable at a given moment which results in people like the girl in the video not having any strong morality and stinking the place out with publicly sleeping with 100 men. It’s not grounded in anything permanent or universal, and thus it’s unreliable and malleable.

Many of my close (atheist) friends objected to killing Irish babies in 2012, but by the time the referendum rolled around in 2018, they were happily supporting what the main stream media wanted them to support which was killing beautiful Irish babies in the thousands or tens of thousands every year.

You can’t have real moral clarity, if you’re constantly shifting the goalposts based on personal or cultural whims. It's possible to be 'moral' in terms of behaviour as an atheist, but inevitably without any moral compass people like this girl and the other thousands of girls on 'Only Fans; will subject themselves to degeneracy publicly, supported by thousands of online clients like James, Myles and Fishalt; who all are likely members of 'Onlyfans'.

Take the case of the girl I linked to, who slept with 100 men in one day. With a solid moral and religious background, something like this would likely not even be considered, let alone celebrated. It’s clear that in the absence of strong moral foundations, anything becomes permissible. In all likelihood this poor girl is lacking a strong male influence—an absent father figure—who might have taught her self-respect and the value of dignity. This is the kind of disintegration you get when you remove the guiding force of a higher moral law. Celebrating her does nothing for your cause.

Absent fathers have significant, life lasting effects on their offspring which they carry throughout life. Look at James and Fishalt for example.

As for your 'hate-filled, dehumanizing Christians' jab? I’d suggest taking a look in the mirror. It’s ironic that you’re throwing around insults instead of addressing any actual points. The fact that you can’t engage in any meaningful dialogue beyond mockery just exposes the hollowness of your argument. You’re not debating—you’re deflecting, and it’s becoming painfully obvious

You're painfully tedious

 

[Tiger]

Did Jesus beat a rapist?

I realise that I’ll lose you five words into this response and that you won’t understand the reply… however your silly question needs a response.

Jesus' actions in the temple were not about personal retribution but about a righteous defense of His Father's house.

The 'beating' with a whip was a demonstration of how serious and unacceptable it is to turn God's sacred space into a den of thieves. It was a powerful symbol that injustices against His Father—particularly the desecration of holy things—are deserving of correction and punishment. If you're asking whether Jesus would have 'beaten' a rapist, you’re missing the deeper point: Jesus’ actions showed that sin, especially when it disrespects the sanctity of God’s laws, calls for justice. In this case, His anger wasn’t about harming individuals, but about showing that violations of divine order are wrong and must be confronted.

Jesus didn’t come to endorse passivity in the face of sin, but to offer the correction and cleansing that only God’s justice and mercy can bring.

 

[Tiger]

You're painfully tedious

You’re painfully uneducated.

 

[Fishalt]

I wouldn’t lose much sleep over the opinions of two alco’s and a hick Aussie with outmoded views.

I mean, your world view is formed by a book written by sand people between 50 and 100CE, Tiger.

 

[Fishalt]

I realise that I’ll lose you five words into this response and that you won’t understand the reply… however your silly question needs a response.

Jesus' actions in the temple were not about personal retribution but about a righteous defense of His Father's house.

The 'beating' with a whip was a demonstration of how serious and unacceptable it is to turn God's sacred space into a den of thieves. It was a powerful symbol that injustices against His Father—particularly the desecration of holy things—are deserving of correction and punishment. If you're asking whether Jesus would have 'beaten' a rapist, you’re missing the deeper point: Jesus’ actions showed that sin, especially when it disrespects the sanctity of God’s laws, calls for justice. In this case, His anger wasn’t about harming individuals, but about showing that violations of divine order are wrong and must be confronted.

Jesus didn’t come to endorse passivity in the face of sin, but to offer the correction and cleansing that only God’s justice and mercy can bring.

12 The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry. 13 Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs. 14 Then he said to the tree, “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.” And his disciples heard him say it.

23 Then he went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up by the way, young lads came out from the city and mocked him and said to him, “Go up, you baldhead; go up, you baldhead!” 24 When he looked behind him and saw them, he cursed them in the name of the LORD. Then two female bears came out of the woods and tore up forty-two lads of their number. 25 And he went from there to Mount Carmel, and from there he returned to Samaria.

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

Take the case of the girl I linked to, who slept with 100 men in one day. With a solid moral and religious background, something like this would likely not even be considered, let alone celebrated. It’s clear that in the absence of strong moral foundations, anything becomes permissible. In all likelihood this poor girl is lacking a strong male influence—an absent father figure—who might have taught her self-respect and the value of dignity. This is the kind of disintegration you get when you remove the guiding force of a higher moral law. Celebrating her does nothing for your cause.

But you don't have to believe in a sky daddy to have good morals. Plenty of bad was visited upon women by religion too.

Why would a man need to listen to your sermons about a fella beating people with sticks to be able to rear his daughter to have respect for herself?

 

[Tiger]

I mean, your world view is formed by a book written by sand people between 50 and 100CE, Tiger.

Your pagan beliefs proceed that book.

 

[AN2]

You’re painfully uneducated.

You're educated in retarded YouTube videos

 

[Fishalt]

Your pagan beliefs proceed that book.

What--like Easter, a Pagan tradition rolled into the Holy Christian calendar by the Romans?

 

[Tiger]

But you don't have to believe in a sky daddy to have good morals. Plenty of bad was visited upon women by religion too.

Why would a man need to listen to your sermons about a fella beating people with sticks to be able to rear his daughter to have respect for herself?

Myles,

First off, using childish terms like 'Sky Daddy' doesn’t make you sound clever—it just makes you sound like you’re misquoting Richard Dawkins and are trying to parrot his tired 'Sky Fairy' line from twenty odd years ago. It’s a lazy, shallow way to dismiss something that has shaped countless civilizations and brought about significant good in the world. You might want to rethink the 'clever' insults before you dig yourself into a deeper hole. It makes you sound like poorly educated idiot.

Now, as for your point about good morals without belief in God—sure, you can have a qualitative level of morals without belief in God, but they’ll be subjective and fluid, with no grounding in any absolute truth. Morality without a transcendent standard is like a ship with no anchor. It drifts wherever the cultural winds blow. As for the idea that religion has done bad things to women—yes, we can acknowledge that abuses have occurred. But that doesn’t negate the fact that Christianity, for example, has been one of the greatest forces for elevating the dignity of women throughout history, far more than any secular system.

And when you ask why a man needs to listen to 'sermons about a fella beating people with sticks' to raise a daughter with respect, you're missing the point entirely. The lesson isn't about 'beating people'—it’s about understanding that the moral and spiritual order of the universe is grounded in God. True respect, self-worth, and moral integrity come from a strong foundation, not from the ever-shifting sands of modern secular thought. If you want to raise a daughter with respect for herself, you need more than just the whims of the day—you need a strong, unchanging moral framework, something Christianity offers that your secular 'morality' can’t provide.

 

[Tiger]

What--like Easter, a Pagan tradition rolled into the Holy Christian calendar by the Romans?

Dreary me.

We’re going to be here all night with this constant onslaught of inbred ignorance.

Did any of ye have 3rd level education?

I’m going to leave all the alcoholics to chat amongst yourselves until tomorrow. Time to retire for the evening.

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

Many of my close (atheist) friends objected to killing Irish babies in 2012, but by the time the referendum rolled around in 2018, they were happily supporting what the main stream media wanted them to support which was killing beautiful Irish babies in the thousands or tens of thousands every year. As seen with the likes of Jambo, Myles and Fishalt.

I can't speak for others but I voted No.

 

[Tiger]

I can't speak for others but I voted No.

Fair play.

Fishalt isn’t Irish and has never set foot in Ireland, however it’s clear from his earlier posts this evening that he would have voted Yes and danced with Leo the fag and his merry gang of fag hags at Dublin Castle if he did live here.

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

Myles,First off, using childish terms like 'Sky Daddy' doesn’t make you sound clever—it just makes you sound like you’re misquoting Richard Dawkins and are trying to parrot his tired 'Sky Fairy' line. It’s a lazy, shallow way to dismiss something that has shaped countless civilizations and brought about significant good in the world. You might want to rethink the 'clever' insults before you dig yourself into a deeper hole. It makes you sound like poorly educated idiot.Now, as for your point about good morals without belief in God—sure, you can have a qualitative level of morals without belief in God, but they’ll be subjective and fluid, with no grounding in any absolute truth. Morality without a transcendent standard is like a ship with no anchor. It drifts wherever the cultural winds blow. As for the idea that religion has done bad things to women—yes, we can acknowledge that abuses have occurred. But that doesn’t negate the fact that Christianity, for example, has been one of the greatest forces for elevating the dignity of women throughout history, far more than any secular system.And when you ask why a man needs to listen to 'sermons about a fella beating people with sticks' to raise a daughter with respect, you're missing the point entirely. The lesson isn't about 'beating people'—it’s about understanding that the moral and spiritual order of the universe is grounded in God. True respect, self-worth, and moral integrity come from a strong foundation, not from the ever-shifting sands of modern secular thought. If you want to raise a daughter with respect for herself, you need more than just the whims of the day—you need a strong, unchanging moral framework, something Christianity offers that your secular 'morality' can’t provide.

None of which requires belief in religion what with its countless hypocrisies and far fetched edicts.

As to belief in some kind of higher power or energy, call it what you will, one can have such beliefs or not I don't think it makes a whole host of difference.

However the religions themselves are man-made houses of cards. They make little sense and are often laced with immoral teachings.

 

[Fishalt]

Fair play.

Fishalt isn’t Irish and has. Ever set foot in Ireland, however it’s clear from his earlier posts this evening that he would have voted Yes and danced with Leo the fag and his merry gamg of fag hags at Dublin Castle if he did live here.

I've never pretended to be anything other than pro-choice. Definitely shouldn't be a free-for-all though. I'm pro abortion, with strict conditions. If your daughter is raped, and falls pregnant and you encourage her to give birth to that child, you're a cuck. It's that simple.

 

[Professor]

Actually, it mostly comes from Aquinas. Who to be fair to him was a very good philosopher. But not even he could make a strong case for the existence of an omnipotent God.

That was back in his day. Today we know much more. - We cannot deny the existence of God. It's a question of perspectives.
Gods come and go, Now there's a new God on the block which has even captivated the minds and spirit's of the old Gods followers too . . .

 

[SwordOfStZip]

We have very different ideas of the right and left so.

You seem to have a fetish for categories and obsess about tiny details that others may consider to be a little - ‘on the spectrum’.

Anyway, I’m just going to head off and listen to everyone’s favourite right wing musician - David Bowie.

You do realize that in the 20 th century in countries where the Left actually ruled they banned rock music and Hollywood films? That is not a small detail, especially if you are going to put forward rock and rollers and Hollywood people as defining embodiments of the Left. Obviously they also had very different ideas to you as regards Left and Right. And yes David Bowie was a right wing musician.

David Bowie as the Right Wing Artist - Ordinary Times

Artists on the right could learn a lot from David Bowie.

ordinary-times.com

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

David Bowie was a right wing musician.

Bowie was a Tranny.

 

[AUL LAD]

I'm an atheist in the sense that I can't verify the existence of deities with any sense I have, and therefore I do not subscribe to the major religions thereof.

that the same for us all but i once met god,
my biggest regret was i am Irish and tremendous things are not meant for the likes of me who was reared in a tough mining village which was in a smog filled hollow and which had very low horizons to view the world .
had i been Indian i would have known that an experience of pure consciousness is not unusual and is a great sign.
i grew fearful during this experience and had i allowed myself to continue i could have acquired the knowledge to become familiar and to have the ability to return to this state .
i know the entire world would be aware of my existence had i the ability to revisit god and tell you all what i found --that sounds crazy to anyone who does not know what i am talking about .
my abilities during that 20 seconds of my time were so increadable its difficult to describe that it was even possible --i now know i operate at about .0005% of what i am capable of and its still here waiting for the humble and majestic key to allow me entry to MYSELF/ TO GOD who awaits my awaking to my own presence and power .
i do not possess one ounce more of god than anyone reading this however i may be the only one who knows this for sure as i have been there which is here -where ever you are.
its stated by some that the Upinashads are 18,000 years old at least --nobody knows who wrote them - they deal with what i am talking about and the experience which is true has no religion or anything else attached to it and the greatest reward is not riches or the blessing of one or thousands of gods it is the acquiring the greater knowledge to know god at an even higher level --this is as good as it gets .
no religion owns you and there are no rules -you cannot be here without perfect morals so therefore no rule book is required .
all prejudices are gone as they serve no useful purpose --there is no value placed on gold or palaces or possessions as they have no use in this world of god who shares all there is with you .

 

[Tiger]

We’re still awaiting the atheists to provide examples contrary to the contention of the OP.

So far, we’ve established that the atheists on Sarsfields want a nationalist leader (or party) that are anti-Catholic, pro abortion, pro euthanasia and like to dabble in a bit of Buddhism as a kind of hobby.

In other words, leaders and politicians identical to the ones who are in government now.

Like I said earlier, atheists make for shit nationalists. The OP is correct.

 

[AN2]

I've never pretended to be anything other than pro-choice. Definitely shouldn't be a free-for-all though. I'm pro abortion, with strict conditions. If your daughter is raped, and falls pregnant and you encourage her to give birth to that child, you're a cuck. It's that simple.

Unfortunately with abortion it invariably includes "abortion on demand" and as we see, a slope to, what could only be described by any sane person, infanticide

That's why one has no other option but to vote no

 

[AUL LAD]

The majority though of indigenous people in the 26 counties are now not Christian never mind Catholic. The percentage of actual Catholics is somewhere between 15 and 25 per cent depending on how strictly you define someone as a Catholic. Therefore I think organizing politically around Catholicism or a generic Christianity would be politically foolish as things stand. Also Bobby Sands and Thomas Clarke were Catholics, pious Catholics even, and Nationalists but they were not Catholic Nationalists- the same would go for someone like De Valera.

i do not fully understand your post -- Tom Clarke and Bobby Sands were Catholics in the way Irish people are --they/we do not attend schools of divinity and you must remember also that i and Tom Clarke shared something in common we both attended a church which did not give a curse about our Irishness or the fact that the entire mass was in a foreign elite language deliberately placed there to control us and deny us an understanding.
like a chemists prescription of old.
shop assistants knew the prescription was deliberately illegible and took it into the back room to compare the squiggle to previous squiggles in order to know what to give you .
today i ask for MY MY MY prescription back from the doctor in order that i keep my own records and i have to fight to get it .
the catholic church of Rome is never referred to by Irish Catholics and i have never met a Irishman who stated he was a roman anything .
i was in st Thomas hospital in 1977 with a collapsed lung and the admin person stood at the end of my bed and with an appalling crydon accent tried to communicate with me .
AAAAA WWUU AAAAAAA CEEEE--- it took about 5 minutes before an nurse came in and interpreted it to mean ARR YU AA WOOOMANNN KATHOLIK and i had never been addressed in my life as a roman anything I replied no .
if they had asked me was i an Irish catholic i would have said yes --but i said which religious minister is nearby that will do-- anyone --surprise me.
Your reference they were not catholic nationalists i do not understand.

 

[AN2]

We’re still awaiting the atheists to provide examples contrary to the contention of the OP.

So far, we’ve established that the atheists on Sarsfields want a nationalist leader (or party) that are anti-Catholic, pro abortion, pro euthanasia and like to dabble in a bit of Buddhism as a kind of hobby.

In other words, leaders and politicians identical to the ones who are in government now.

Like I said earlier, atheists make for shit nationalists. The OP is correct.

This is a level of non-thought that can only be described as soapbox duncery

 

[SwordOfStZip]

The below is worth at least a listen....


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQpQTD3wLuk

 

[AN2]

The below is worth at least a listen....


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQpQTD3wLuk

I've argued the case for Christianity in society, obviously it gives comfort, solace, enjoyment, "meaning" etc. and is a harness, as @Tiger has attested to, it's the only thing that stops him from personally thinking that it's okay to rape and murder a child.

As for say 'true belief' (in religion(s)), I'm not sure that you appreciate the difficulty with that.

 

[AUL LAD]

I realise that I’ll lose you five words into this response and that you won’t understand the reply… however your silly question needs a response.

Jesus' actions in the temple were not about personal retribution but about a righteous defense of His Father's house.

The 'beating' with a whip was a demonstration of how serious and unacceptable it is to turn God's sacred space into a den of thieves. It was a powerful symbol that injustices against His Father—particularly the desecration of holy things—are deserving of correction and punishment. If you're asking whether Jesus would have 'beaten' a rapist, you’re missing the deeper point: Jesus’ actions showed that sin, especially when it disrespects the sanctity of God’s laws, calls for justice. In this case, His anger wasn’t about harming individuals, but about showing that violations of divine order are wrong and must be confronted.

Jesus didn’t come to endorse passivity in the face of sin, but to offer the correction and cleansing that only God’s justice and mercy can bring.

usury when looked at calmly and scientifically shows a system which will mathematically remove the wealth from any community anywhere on the planet .
the priests of the temple saw that the people intensely disliked giving sacrifice using coins with Herods head -their persecutor and puppet ruler from Rome on them so to satisfy the demand they minted TEMPLE SACRIFICE CURRENCY free of Herods image .
the scam was then available to create a artificial shortage of TEMPLE COINS which meant people paid 2 dinars instead of one for one as was the custom .
this extra coin earned from fresh air was a value created out of nothing other than the lie there is a shortage -- therefore there was no exchange in value -- for the first time nothing was exchanged for its value and it mathematically meant those who could get a currency without paying a value for it would mathematically eventually own all the wealth of the community and therefore cause its destruction and starvation .
Christ knew what the Muslims knew who refer to this forbidden practice as ribera today was the most evil practice known to man as it would destroy any society.
i sometimes hate the catholic church as i was beaten when young for doggedly pursuing the story of Christ making whip cords and whipping people in the temple who in some illustrations were merely selling baskets of pidgins and i desperatly wanted to know why he lost the rag and would not let it go and was beaten .
what a difference it would have made to my and everyone else's life to have an understanding of usury and its power and the permission given by the evil catholic church to go against Christs most profound statement that usury was evil,
and the Vatican itself was engaged in banking /usury and archbishop marchinkus the Vatican finance minister had 15 sample arrest warrants issued against him for clearing the drug money from the new jersey mafia .
when pope John Paul was asked about this he replied BLESS THE ARCHBISHOP THE CHURCH COULD NOT DO ITS GREAT WORKS WITH THE MONEY HE GENERATES TO MAKE THIS POSSIBLE BLESS HIM AND HIS WORK.
this is usury in the temple in our time and had there been a Christ figure in the church or a body of religious loyal to Christs teachings it would have been stopped .
this is why i am a bad Irish catholic who makes it up as i go along depending on the zoo animal i am dealing with and any other circumstances within my power to deal with .
my church has no morals --it could ask the world to really REALLY BOYCOTT the Israel state and the American state which bombs them .
the catholic church could end the genocide if it wished --millions would obey gladly it would be over in a week .
fuck them fuck them again they are parasites not religious with morals .
the most ordinary Irishman who has NEVER in his life read a bible or spent 5 minutes debating what we are debating here has more religion and true love of Christ than the pope in Rome.

 

[Tiger]

The closest thing

This is a level of non-thought that can only be described as soapbox duncery

For shits and giggles, why don’t you tell us where you lie on the left/right paradigm.

Are you on the left, in the middle or on the right?

 

[AN2]

The closest thing

Oh oh oh..

For shits and giggles, why don’t you tell us where you lie on the left/right paradigm.

Are you on the left, in the middle or on the right?

lol I appreciate that you aren't but I am a nationalist, what do you think?

 

[Tiger]

Oh oh oh..




lol I appreciate that you aren't but I am a nationalist, what do you think?

That’s an answer to a question I didn’t ask.

Where do you see yourself on the left/right paradigm?

 

[AN2]

That’s an answer to a question I didn’t ask.

Where do you see yourself on the left/right paradigm?

For a long time I've said that I only positively identify as a nationalist. Obviously the mainstream paradigm of left and right is fake and gay

 

[SwordOfStZip]

For a long time I've said that I only positively identify as a nationalist. Obviously the mainstream paradigm of left and right is fake and gay

It has it's uses if qualified but it also has significant limitations.

 

[Tiger]

For a long time I've said that I only positively identify as a nationalist. Obviously the mainstream paradigm of left and right is fake and gay

So if we were to put your beliefs beside the esteemed nationalists of the past, side by side, how would you compare?

As an example, your beliefs compared to Thomas Clarke.

Do you think there’s a new form of secular nationalism that compares favourably with the past?

 

[SwordOfStZip]

So if we were to put your beliefs beside the esteemed nationalists of the past, side by side, how would you compare?

As an example, your beliefs compared to Thomas Clarke.

Do you think there’s a new form of secular nationalism that compares favourably with the past?

~
Did Thomas Clarke want a Catholic Theocracy as a State?