Saturday, February 14, 2009

'Godless' Liberals

The word 'godless' is an insult true and without time; the principles which it demonstrates remain consistent whether spoken by a priest of the Spanish inquisition in the Fourteenth Century or an exceptionally caustic radio host in the Twenty-First. It is quite easy to use - you must merely aim it towards the closest person superficially different from you - and even perhaps considered to be justified in said use, as religion is a choice of the soul and not a quality of body or heritage. The sneer itself, though, shows appalling hate, judgment and superiority, none of which I deem it appropriate to tolerate on the topic of religious freedom either in the realm of government or in that of common life.

Liberals, in America, have been 'Godless' since the advent of Communism, and since the deep association between the political left and a truly terrible foreign enemy. There is no question that Communism is wholly unsuccessful; and, indeed, in liberal policies of expanded government and graduated taxation one may find echoes of Communist or Socialist policies, as one may perceive a person taking two steps towards the North and thus accuse him of attempting invasion of Canada.

Not only is the association false, but the term 'Godless' itself has no grounding in fact. This does not deter those who level the term; they are entirely unconvinced by either figures of overall church attendance or personal anecdotes of religious incidence on the liberal side.

Furthermore, this country was not founded on religious tenets. That certain populations within this country would insist that membership in a particular religious group is essential towards 'Americanism' angers me greatly. There was quite a concrete reason the framers of the Constitution - myself and the soon-to-be Democratic-Republicans, for the most part - insisted on a Bill of Rights and a passage including the freedom of religious practice.

I have no conception when patriotism evolved into simple praise of this country's principles and practices. It is as though one must preclude every argument with an insistence that America is a great nation - as though its accomplishments and freedoms do not speak for themselves! If such were the definition of patriotism then I, readers, am the least patriot of all, as I never passed the opportunity to call the government into question, even when I was at its head.

Friday, February 6, 2009

On Philosophies and War

I am, of late, given to rumination on the natures of religions which have entered the sphere of the public awareness in the years since my death. Particularly, I have noticed a surprising popularity of religions - or philosophies, I suppose - with origins in Asia.

Buddhism, especially, is considered by many to be a near-perfect philosophy, a standard of life impossible for the many but ideal for the few. I cannot comprehend the reasoning behind this outlook. The insistence on detachment, in Buddhist philosophy, seems the last refuge of a mind so obsessed with its pain that it must likewise relinquish joy. They come hand in hand; you may not have one without the other. Therefore, so as to live the clearest life possible, in Buddhism, one may have neither.

Similarly, in the Taoist concept of the Uncarved Block, ignorance and haplessness are idealized to an utter perfection of contentment. Ignorance, quite literally, is bliss. Taoism would have each of its followers relinquish all responsibility for the ebb and flow of the world, and instead hold themselves apart.

For those who would advocate the Buddhist support of unconditional peace, I would remind you that, though the evil of war is great and terrible, there is good that may not be accomplished but with blood. Fighting for freedom is not made wrong simply because it is fighting - that is not only folly, but a dangerous disrespect to those who have fought.