You say "I was asking if it is okay to omit the conjunction though when quoting the poem above."
Consider: The sentence
We are not now that strength which in old days moved earth and heaven.
In fact reduces to nothing more than this:
We are not now very strong.
or even more simply, you can reduce it to this:
We are weak.
As you can see, that is an utterly normal, absolutely-OK-to-say sentence. Right?
So in answer to your question, "I was asking if it is okay to omit the conjunction though when quoting the poem above.", the answer is a firm
There's nothing to it. It's a completely valid sentence, utterly normal, with the usual gramattical bits and pieces.
Be aware that:
Regarding grammar in poetry: it's rather meaningless. If you wrote down the whole selection above as "one sentence" (i.e., dropping the newlines, and dropping the capitals) it would be more or less meaningless.
At the very least, you'd have to insert some ":" cheat punctuation to make it sort of make sense. There are any number of examples of famous verse fragments that are pretty meaningless grammatically. (Indeed, just my personal opinion, the translation above, that poetry in English, is really a shambles. It's quite poor. The writer is kind of getting away with "stringing together phrases" because it kind of makes sense in a spoken format.)
So when you ask "can I omit the conjunction?" the problem is this: with, or without, the conjuction, if you write down the entire thing ("as if one sentence"), it is ungrammatical / senseless anyway!
"Shouldn't she have..." "If she didn't why not?" Poetry is typically more about "sentence fragments" than strict grammar. It's rather like asking if the grammar is "correct" in a ad headline or indeed a pop song. The conventional rules of grammar in written English are largely irrelevant.