The Archbishop of Canterbury is less religious man than politician. This is obvious if one reads the history of England with a critical eye, and if one takes note that the modern Archbishop has, for all intents and purposes, no bishopric -- the pews are empty, the English non-conformists never took the COE seriously, and the good Anglican simply selects which bits of dogmatic flotsam and jetsam best fit their version of bastardized Christianity (mostly the ones where they get to rationalize what would once have been considered sinful) -- and he becomes one more symbolic anachronism, a Man simply going through the motions of pomp and circumstance, in keeping with traditions that most people cannot recall the origins of. Nor do they care to recall.
Islam is obviously not a religion; it is a military code, at best, and at worst, it is a rationalization of the Nomadic Code of the Arabian Desert -- do unto others before they do unto you, and if they manage to do first, then whine like a bitch about what a victim you are while plotting your sneaky-ass-revenge-from-behind-because-you-have-no-balls. If Islam is anything, it is, at heart, a "me-too" religion; if the Jews can consider themselves chosen, and the Christians can be considered the only ones worthy of "saving", then we'll just co-opt their religion and reserve the same chauvinism for ourselves.
Besides, Mohammed was a child molesting, slave-owning thief and murderer. Who, seriously, would listen to someone like that? Oh, right...the other child-molesting, slave-owning thieves and murderers.
But, I digress...The subject of this essay is the liberal (small 'l' intentional) rejection of God. When speaking of liberals, I mean specifically the modern, Western liberal, who is anything but, having rejected the tenets of Classical Liberalism almost as much as they have the tenets of religious belief.
When I speak of "religion" in this context, I must make a bit of clarification: I am not interested in the mythology of the great religions, nor am I am interested so much in their eschatology. These, to me, anyway, border on the ridiculous; they are an amalgam of what modern religionists would consider "paganism" if they were applied to say, the worshiper of Thor or Zeus, and yet, there is very little obvious difference between Christ and Mithras, Odin and Yahweh, or Hermes and Quetzalcoatl, Mohammed and Jeremiah; we keep getting the same myths and speeches, only in recycled and tailored-for-the-audience form.
No, what I'm primarily fixed upon in this context is the code of conduct, for lack of a better term. The ethical and moral codes that (supposedly) come with religious belief.
When the liberal declares that "God is Dead", or simply refuses to acknowledge that God ever existed, what he seeks to do is to dispense with the moral and ethical code that comes with traditional religion. He has to for the following reasons:
1. Inherent in the belief in moral and ethical codes are their adjuncts: responsibility, notions of good and evil, the question of the good of the many versus the good of the few, self-sacrifice, abstention, loyalty, the notion that actions or ideas have consequences, and finally, the very real possibility of judgement from the community.
When the liberal rejects God, he rejects these as well. After all, the liberal spends his life trying to avoid responsibility, judgement, sacrifice, consequences, and so forth. it's WHY he's a liberal. He seeks to live in a world in which he is able to do what whim directs him to do, and all that baggage that comes with right and wrong/good and evil/responsibility and so forth simply kills his buzz.
2. The existence of God suggests an authority, a final authority, set above Man. Since the liberal believes that Man is the measure of all things (if Man can think it, then he should be free to do it) any system of belief, any suggestion of standards, any possibility of having to suffer the (usually foreseeable and logical) consequences of the thought or deed, must be denied. Since you cannot deny them by reason (10,000 years of human civilization has given us a vast store of practical knowledge of things that are self-evident, although most refuse to use it properly), then the thing to do is to simply refuse to recognize it.
3. In the end, all (modern) liberal systems of thought -- especially that oxymoronic nonsense that calls itself "Progressivism" -- lead directly to one place: forced collectivism and tyranny. Since the liberal wants what he wants when he wants it, and wants it all in the face of those who would deny it to him -- through the force of conventional morality and ethics -- the liberal seeks to achieve power (usually political) as a means of establishing his stupidity in government and law, simply arguing that those systems (devised by Man) are superior to those established by (a fake, dead) God.
4. If the liberal ever told the truth about what he wants and why he wants it, he'd be shot dead in the streets by people who would be rightfully appalled.
The Collective is the ultimate goal: it is only through a forced, collective society (run by liberals, of course) that the liberal can achieve his ends. He has to use the weapons of Earthly Power to establish what the Unworldly Power would deny him.
The one thing the liberal has in his favor in this fight is that the Unworldly Power doesn't seem very interested in actually stopping him. I mean, establish the "right" to an abortion on demand, and there's no rain of Brimstone from the Heavens. Insist that it's quite okay to stick your dick into anything that moves just because you want to, regardless of age, sex or species, and an Army of Angels does not descend to right an obvious wrong.
So, it would appear as if the liberal is right: God is Dead. Or maybe just absent. Or you can take my personal view, which is God might actually exist, but She's an asshole (God must be female, for only a woman could fuck up this royally and still demand to be worshiped for it); nothing like what conventional religion says She is. In this view, we're all God's toys: she built us, wound us up, and then sits over all of Creation watching us fuck up, laughing, waiting for the proper moment to stand over this anthill Earth with her giant magnifying glass to fry us all as we exit the hive.
Now just because I've postulated that God may not be who or what we think She is, it doesn't mean that I also reject the notions of morality and ethics that come with conventional religion.
I had the good fortune to be educated in Catholic schools, and while they failed terribly in indoctrinating me into their little mythological justification for living in a self-imposed prison of fear, guilt, shame, envy, ignorance, and terror, they also succeeded in imparting something of a moral code by which to live. "Love thy neighbor" is a fairly good point, if somewhat flaccid, for example, as it typically appears that all the loving is going one way, and that is how it should be (the object being to Love without expectation of reward, or even acknowledgement). But, putting that little example aside, it would seem to me that the basic moral and ethical code of the Judeo-Christian is, at the very best, the least worst set of rules for a gentle (not necessarily Gentile) society.
It implies boundaries, for one. It implies the disapproval of the herd for transgression, for another. These are powerful brakes on the worst sorts of behavior, mainly psychological though they are. They're still better than no brakes at all.
I don't mean to defend Christianity: I am no theologian and there's no frickin' way that one can defend all the inconsistencies between Christian belief and Christian activity and still consider oneself sane. I simply say that having a "Set of Rules" that seem to be pretty universally acceptable is better than having a Set of Rules which are created and enforced by complete retards.
For the modern liberal IS a retard; he's morally, ethically, intellectually, logically, socially, and pathologically challenged.
Before I get a load of e-mail from the thin-skinned legions of doubleplus goodthinkers who are quick to take offense (they laugh off or fail to notice any offense that they give, so it would seem the one-way-ness of the "Love thy Neighbor"dialectic at least appeals to them when they can manage to take advantage of it), let me explain what "retarded" means.
It means you're a dope. It means you have no intellect beyond an animal-level of understanding. It means you couldn't tie your own shoes or chew gum independently without a government program. I base this opinion on one, inarguable premise: that a liberal's concept of freedom typically always revolves around the twin Holy Grails of his/her genitalia and someone else's wallet. So long as you get to screw what you want how you want to, and have someone else pay for it, you're all for freedom. If one would suggest that freedom has a corresponding set of responsibilities, then you get called fascist/racist/sexist/ethnocentric/jingoist/homophobic, etc.
Once again, "Love thy Neighbor" only goes one way.
But, in one of those Celestial Ironies that God must be laughing her Holy Ass off over, it would seem the liberal HAS, without noticing, still been infected (as they would put it) by conventional religion. For when you think about HOW the liberal goes about creating his Paradise on Earth, you find that he uses the same arsenal the Catholic Church does: fear, envy, guilt, shame, terror, ignorance. Then again, much of warfare is an exercise in using the enemy's weaknesses against himself. And yes we are at War.
If you don't approve of this week's bit of regurgitated liberal stupidity, the Weapons are brandished:
If you find homosexuality immoral, then it's because you fear gays and have a personal hang-up about sex (fear, guilt and shame).
If you find abortion objectionable, it's because you want millions of poor babies to be born who will have to be supported by the State, who will all starve in the streets (shame sympathy, ignorance).
If you believe that poverty is not caused by moral failings, but is instead simply the lack of material possessions, then you're a hating fucktard who stole everything you have from those "less fortunate", and are being a greedy bastard by refusing to "share" (shame, guilt, envy, ignorance).
If you can't understand that screwing cocker spaniels in public parks, locking up people you disagree with, having people who use their right to free speech in defiance of the Collective fired, or using the power of the government to take from the productive to give to the unproductive who thereafter never make an attempt to become productive, are all the wrong things to do, well, then it's because you're a fucking idiot who isn't as enlightened or as committed to freedom as the douchebag who simply follows the latest bit of hashtag activism, always in "solidarity with the masses", but who then never does anything to actually back it up (all of the above, plus a huge helping of moral preening).
Because action is anachronistic, you know. Physical courage is so....medieval. Not the sort of thing an enlightened pantywaist goes in for. Everything works so much better if you simply whine enough until society is worn down by the noise and gives in to your little passive-aggressive hissy fit. It worked on Mom and Dad, why not society at large?
Which brings us to the morality and ethics of action, and the religious context that comes with it.
Because the liberal is forever attempting to create a world in which he is never responsible for anything, in which he can safely avoid the consequences of everything, the liberal takes no (meaningful) action, unless, of course, he is borne up by the faux bravery that comes with believing that he has numbers on his side.
Obamacare, the Soviet and Nazi concentration camps, for example, are endeavors only undertaken whenever the modern liberal believes that his position is unassailable, that he has the legions of brain-dead thumbsuckers he calls "the Masses" behind him. (In another of those Celestial Ironies, the liberal hates The Masses, even while pretending to be their champion; their only use is as a convenient prop that excuses his crimes).
In this way, the liberal takes such drastic and eminently wrongheaded action because the sin is made collective, and not personal. You can't blame Mary in the office -- the one with the Meat Is Murder bumper stickers, and Kerry-Edwards coffee mug on her desk -- for the injustice that is Obamacare because, well, 52% of the voters wanted it, too. Hitler only got away with killing millions of "sub-humans" because the majority of Germans thought those people sub-human, as well. If enough people hold the same opinion, it cannot be "wrong", you see. And because there is no outside authority to judge right/wrong -- because God doesn't exist, and therefore everything, including moral codes, created or implied by her existence, are non-operative --who is to say what is allowable, what is egregious, what is depraved?
In this way, the liberal almost convinces you -- but primarily convinces himself, because it's ALWAYS about him -- that it's all justified because millions of others who, at least momentarily, believed the same thing he did at the time, are as guilty as he is; and if the guilt is collective, then it doesn't really attach to a particular individual, does it? Dodged another bullet!
The rest of the time, that is to say, when the liberal doesn't have numbers on his side, he cries like a menstrual woman about how misunderstood and oppressed he is, and about how fucking unfair Life is, because the rest of us, who hold to some standards of behavior, hold him in check.
But, back to the religious implications of action.
Inherent in Judeo-Christian belief is a duty that is laid upon the faithful to make the world a better place than how they found it. The Messiah will only come (or return) when Man has proven himself worthy, or has prepared the world for this blessed event. It behooves Man, in the name of Salvation, to actively seek to eliminate the evils of the world -- dirt, illiteracy, disease, crime, sin, indecency, inequality, sadism -- they all must be eradicated. The question of "how" they are to be erased is left mostly unanswered, but it is assumed that whatever action is taken to this end it must be taken with regards to The Rules. That is, the ends must be justified by moral and ethical means.
To the liberal, the ends (giving the liberal everything he wants) automatically justify the means, which don't necessarily have to be either moral or ethical. The liberal will lie, cheat, steal, intimidate, use violence, bully, riot, as his means. But then again, why shouldn't he? The Other Side, by committing itself to achieving it's goals within a moral and ethical framework has unilaterally disarmed.
And disarmed people are so much easier to manipulate and terrorize.
I started this essay with the premise that religious belief, in and of itself, is relatively useless, or at the very best, questionable, but I conclude that even if this is strictly true, one of the by-products has been a system of belief that at least attempts to live up to the standards it sets. It begins with a belief that God is Watching, and that God has set down The Rules for us all to follow, and therefore, anything done outside of The Rules is adjudged to be grievously wrong.
The liberal, because she rejects the idea of God, rejects The Rules.
And this makes her dangerous to a decent society.
Yes, I am aware that there are (few, in my experience) principled liberals, even godly ones, but it is also true that when cherished beliefs conflict with cherished wishes, beliefs usually fly right out the window. Whenever this happens, the religious concoct a tautology that this is a manifestation of Free Will in defiance of God; the liberal responds that Free Will is all there is.
Which translates to "all bets are off...".
I think I've had enough of that kind of world.
I don't advocate religion as the solution to all of our problems, nor do I wish to imply that all liberals should be forced to accept God; I simply state that it's probably better to live in a society which is guided by the principle of "the most right for the most people, done correctly" -- regardless of it's source -- than it is to live in a society where any perversion of thought, flesh, and deed can be justified on the premise that "there's nothing capable of stopping me".