The UN of religions and other monumental nonsenseby Father Terzio
Taken from: exorbe.blogspot.mx/2014/09/la-onu-de-las-religiones-y-otras.html
of Saturday, Sept 6, 2014.
Translated by Roberto Hope
As Shimon Peres has lived circumcised for 91 years, he says and proposes things that can be expected of a nonagenarian. And as today's Pope is PP Franciscus, he receives the nonagenarian instead of sending him his regards with a benediction via diplomatic pouch. What's bad, however is that nobody has officially laughed at Don Shimon, sending him off to take his milk soups and have his diaper changed; what´s worse is that the senile occurrence of the said individual be news and that it may have been archived as a proposal (dangerous charm word) in the minds of more than one.
The good for nothing who misruled Spain; that Zp (a shame to Spaniards and strangers), proposed that idea of the “alliance of civilizations”, invention which would probably serve as a sinkhole for many monies, millions that so stupendously well the agents of the PSOE pigherd know how to mislay. It strikes me as strange that goy Zp and circumcised Peres should converge in the concoction of monumental pork barrels, as if the official UN were not already a sufficient abyss of smoke and fog.
What these conceivers of a religious-international refrain from mentioning is that they, the promoters, are hardly religious at all and that, in addition, they believe religion and religions to be a problem, even “the” problem. The problem which places obstacles to their objectives (objectives which, no need to stress it, are in no way religious).
They will also abstain from expounding their conviction that the Church is the greatest problem (i.e. the true Church, the Catholic Church, of course). They will keep that minutiae secret. They will even try to persuade the Pope to religiously preside the governing board of religions, so as to keep him close and well controlled.
One of the goals of any enemy of religion is to control religion in order to exterminate religion. What room is there for doubt that a global pan-religious organism would facilitate such annihilation since it would concentrate its target?
Deepening on the topic, leaving the utopia of the UN-religion in the limbo of proposals, it should be noted that no religion recognizing itself as such would accept such egalitarian co-participating gregariousness, which in fact signifies its de-legitimation as a religion. In the end, a UN-religion would suppose negating the supernatural, negating revelation, and their supplantation by an absolute religious positivism which would implicitly carry the thesis of the superseding of religions and their substitution by a political organism in which what is religious would be subjected to the convention agreed by its members. All of that could be disguised with religious forms/formalities, but the entity as such would be the de facto negation of what is religious and of all religion.
I apologize for the long-windedness of my comment, which I had not pretended. But the matter is that the topic –I excuse myself– drags one to philosophical diarrhea.
A UN-religion can only be conceived by a perverse mind.
It looks perverse to me that such a significant dignitary of the Israeli State, with the Palestine massacre still bleeding, should go visit the Pope and propose a UN-religion. Shimon Peres appears to me as an impudent conniver, an indecent old man.
PP Franciscus appears to me as what he himself persists in giving appearance of, someone more pathetic today than yesterday, but less than tomorrow.
Commenting on his little sermon at Santa Marta on the parable of the wineskins, as any post-conciliar preacher, with prattling exegesis of Jesuit of the crowd, with his customary glibness, blathered about the need to change the ecclesial structures. He may (or may not) know which or how many.
One of the blurbs which summarized the sermon ended this way, stressing the words of PP Franciscus:
... The Gospel – insisted Francis – ¡is novelty! ¡The Gospel is feast!
... And I don't know what to say because I am afraid of saying what I should not.