Sunday, January 11, 2015

The (liberal's) Rejection of Religion...

Before I begin on this subject, I wish it to be known that I am not a godly person. Far from it. I do not hold to many traditional notions of Christianity, finding in them less a way of life than I usually interpret them as a consequence of mythology and long-useless tradition: the Pope sits on the Vatican Hill in Rome much as the Roman Pontifex Rex of yore did, a simple figurehead, to whom is attached much ceremony, superstition, and attribution of sacredness that is otherwise unwarranted -- as was true of his Roman prototype 1,000 years before.

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.