On a superficial level, I can see how someone could think that ridding culture of the silly notion of God would be a good thing; kind of like a world imagined in John Lennon’s song: “Imagine”. He asked us all to imagine that there’s no god or religion, that above us was only molecules… just like below us… and in us… just molecules. But don’t think about it any further than that if you want to have any relationship whatsoever with logic.
But that’s just what the state is up to. But it has a monumental problem in attempting two tasks at the same time, both of which are pulling in opposite directions. First, it teaches in its schoolhouse that we are nothing more than sacks of molecules arranged by chance over time in an environment that came about the same way. The best they can come up with is “survival of the fittest”. So naturally it teaches that there is no such thing as ultimate good and evil and that such notions are nothing more than electrical impulses this way and that, all set in motion from billions of years of chance arrangement that all started from nothing. That’s one task.
At the same time the state is tasked to teach that there is ultimate right and wrong; that you can’t pollute the environment, or say anything at all derogatory about certain depraved inclinations, or question the state about anything at all. So in short it’s easy to see that the state’s real task is simply to usurp God. It must at the same time say there is no god and then put itself up as a god. It rejects all ideas of evil, then makes laws, as if evil exists. Of course, it has no basis for defining evil beyond itself. And that’s why I refer to it so often in these writings as the god/state which must reject evil while teaching against evil. Yes, confusing, I know. But there’s nothing new here really. Man by his nature has always been in rebellion against God so it should be no surprise to us when the worship of man in Secular Humanism becomes the established religion.
That’s why the average graduate from the state school, will, on the one hand, say that no one should judge and on the other judge harshly those who don’t agree with them on social issues. They will preach endlessly about environmentalism, then drive their air-polluting cars home to their large air-conditioned houses and not think a thing about it. They will constantly cry for more of a thing so indefinable as “social justice”, and then go to a rally and decry that someone out there thinks that it’s wrong to suggest that crushing and dismembering babies is evil. But as I said, this is not new. Let’s look back a hundred years to C. K. Chesterton. He had this to say in his book “Orthodoxy”:
For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it. Thus he writes one book complaining that imperial oppression insults the purity of women , and then he writes another book (about the sex problem) in which he insults it himself. He curses the Sultan because Christian girls lose their virginity, and then curses Mrs. Grundy because they keep it. As a politician, he will cry out that war is a waste of life, and then, as a philosopher, that all life is waste of time. A Russian pessimist will denounce a policeman for killing a peasant, and then prove by the highest philosophical principles that the peasant ought to have killed himself. A man denounces marriage as a lie, and then denounces aristocratic profligates for treating it as a lie. He calls a flag a bauble, and then blames the oppressors of Poland or Ireland because they take away that bauble. The man of this school goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts; then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting , where he proves that they practically are beasts. In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite sceptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mines . In his book on politics he attacks men for trampling on morality; in his book on ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men. Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything.
…and I recently saw this by a more recent thinker:
This is Ravi Zacharias. He has moral clarity. The one asking the question is a student indoctrinated by the state. He is confused. He want’s to borrow God’s laws, then self-righteously judge everyone but himself, including God, using that standard. But we should expect nothing different. He’s been indoctrinated to think the way he does. He couldn’t not think that way no more than an ice cream maker could pop popcorn. He’s confident that he’s right. And he’s just as confident no one should be confident about anything.
It’s one thing to be confused. But to be confused in a confused society is something far worse. There’s no one to help you. You feed off of each other’s confusion. But even worse yet is to send your children to be trained in a confused institution put there by a confused culture. There is good… and there’s evil,. and to grasp that is a far better than living in the confusion of thinking that they both do and don’t exist at the same time.
The truth is that if good and evil are based on electrical impulses going on between our ears, then there’s no such thing as good and evil… and that’s exactly what your child will be taught at the schoolhouse. But there is good… and there is evil, and that is good. At least it’s good to have that much logic at your foundations. And it’s a far better thing to live knowing that there is evil in the world, and to be taught the same thing, than to live in the gray fog of confusion that is feeling that they both do and don’t exist at the same time.