The segregation myth of Church and State in the West

We have all fallen for it, the idea of a separate all inclusive democratic rule of law co-existing with the Christian legislative rule.

What actually happens with our votes after an election process?

Mostly nothing. The usual tidius process of talks and negotiations start with no end result. No concise decisions without concrete follow up on promises. The blame cards are taken out, and the fixation on personal characters start.

Politics become about the main characters and we all lose focus on actual policy change, estabilsing a new leguslative rule etc. In other words 90% of the governance process is actually about other things than politics. Its a he said she said game and more of that running around in circles responding to eachothers bad ideas.

How much of what politicians say and promise actually goes through?

Just enough to sush the critics the rest is talk to safe face amongst peers and other non-issues.

When you actually pay attention we learn about the impact the Church still has in our everyday lives. The Church has a massive impact on the house of commons. Whether we like to admit it or not, the Christian lawmakers still have the upper hand in the formation of our everyday laws.

Hence why so many ethnic people with strong Christian backgrounds automatically have a strong inclinationto the Western country’s they move to. An instant sense of belonging. No one makes them feel uncomfortable. There is a strong inclination to the ruling parties and even a sense of arrogance and entitlement.

Where is the atheist vote go, you ask?

Even after protest it is they, i.e. the Christians on behalf of the Church who will evidently have the last say on Western rule of law.

There is a bit of given in but it is often not enough or it takes years for actual change to happen. This is also because of the average age of those in parlement.

What about the Jewish vote?

We keep it to a water-downed version of Judaism, who get just enough due to historical guilt. They get the privilege to not only have a seat at the table but to co-sign laws. Constant honorary mention thanks to a neverending Western conscience and perhaps also due to the Cameleon secretly pushing for a plus on behalf of.

That explaines why there is so much emphasis on the Christian-Judeo pact in the Westen society. Hence the sole reason for blatant exclusion of Muslim lawmakers and the lack of condemnation of islamophobia in parlement, in the corporate world and in average small businesses.

The Orthodox Church sees the Islamic religion as a threat. Mohamed, the most prominent islamic figure as a false prophet with “ a wrong philosophy” and its followers a potential danger to society.

I must be honest in this one. I am an incredibly dangerous woman.

Anyway, disrespect towards…is generally accepted thus normalised.

An anti-islamic retoric is what you get back on official government buildings, corporations and financial institutes.

It is hilarious how there is always some friction with consciously religious Muslims, especially in some Western countries.

Take the Netherlands for example. The Dutch worry about the amount of Somalis being born in Kenyan refugee camps. The conscern is mainly based on the notion that these children are born to muslim parents.

At the same time the Church is discouraging nebouring African countries not to use condoms which resuls in overpopulation in Christian African countries.

Another one is Somali people don’t work but there is no mention of the 80% of predominantly Eritrean Christians and Jews who are;

1. analphabetic and 2. smootching of the well-fare system.

There is amongst Dutch law makers definitely not enough self criticism.

Notice how that works? Religion still plays a a significant part in Western politics regardless what they tell us.

We are meant to trust that White guy on a political podium on the basis of integrity and professionalism. But the opposite is often true.

Most of us dont question whether this man would serve us a different reality because of his religious background right?

A religion that is so sacred to him he abides by but will not carry out in public.

What kind of a person does that?

A morally deceptive person does that.

All that talk about mutual reapect is actually non-existing. Muslim women are harrassed ridiculed and assaulted on the work place for no reason at all. Not wanting to participate in foolishness. Even by other marginalised group members hoping to shed off negative group image themselves. Hoping to redirect the negative spotlight from themselves.

Yes but religion is a private matter you say. It is and no one is waving a flag around or harrassing others about their religion.

But as a society; are we encouraging people to hide who they are?

Does that explain the sense of comfort those with Christian or Jewish backgrounds feel migrating or living in a Western country? Feeling of detachment from reality and the right to come after those who carry out their Islamic religion? Or the urge of certain Muslims to put emphasise on their skin colour. Pleading with parliament to tick the Whitebox?

What about other religions?

On behalf of the facade of acceptance and if they comply in full agreement they are used as a shield of “non-discriminatory” grounds and “anti-islamophobic retoric”. These also marginalised groups then conveniently become the poster child for denial.

They are happy to play along. Because for once, it’s not about them.

Contrary to muslims on the office floors who often have to deal with unrelavant questions repeatedly. And are not made to feel at ease or comfortable at all.

After 50 years of Muslim migration to the West. A White person will still have the audacity in the name of curiosity to ask questions such as; “Are you not allowed to drink water when fasting?” Or, “you don’t eat pork?”

These are still serious questions.

This tells us the following; one can be book smart and still be stupid at the core. Therefore posing a serious threat to society after all.