Why is it wrong to kill another? Could this be the subtext of the majority left in the United States? The error found against the protectors is in a dishonest toil; the plot is only ever as thick as the story has been explained and can only be made to fill the pages dedicated to the subject as a writer sees fit; and while this could be said for nearly any subject with substance, the expression of those radical ideas lend to the rationalization of notions even further than the scope of the immediate dialogue. To align with individuals who peddle a sort of justice based in the social norms that is then dispensed toward those who simply disagree instead of those who seek to do actual harm or commit heinous acts of hate without remorse, all the while displaying themselves to be the truest manifestation of things yet to come, and this is done with pride.
Islamophobia has taken over the current and momentum the entire left has pressed for these past six or seven decades, not sparring any event of the past century in regards to the uprises and subsequent folding of the classes, a feature it could be argued our American forefathers weren't hardly thrilled about, nonetheless, the sad and unfortunate events of the late 1800's funneled the government's options and left no room for public discord, and, to underscore the reality of this implementation of a horrible notion, one only need contemplate the structures set in place after the low income areas were sold as an investment to the government in the form of identity currency. A quick gander at the historical data commands us to pay close attention to the areas impacted most by failed policies and questionable ethics.
Could Buddhism be seen as more of an intense introspective realization of a distinct part of a whole? If so, wouldn't that then arbitrarily reorganize the whole and remove choice as an option whereby to govern ones self? If so, is it beyond reason to conclude that it is intellectually and morally dangerous on the grounds that it replaces personal responsibility and accountability with a loose form of nihilism and glorified ignorance; when attachment to a dead flower is broken do we really pay mind to the method of disposal? It is unlikely, arguably as unlikely as being reincarnated.
Eventually, there has been that which will be so, as some dictatorial nature would have you; the delivery of reality through the eyes as the drying eye of a fish flopped on the shore; temporary. This lends my belief to the airy, liberating mindfulness paid to the dialectorial proceedings of a God typed figure; without a previous statement, the intervening qualities that act as criterion for god "status" are hardly reached by any of the figured characters if the text isn't taken literally, which happens to be the biggest case for the perceived authority of a "Holy Text", and the most wounding case against the criminated, especially when a fair and reasonable criteria is the rule of the intellectual proverbial playground; and I somewhat say intellectual because telling someone to be reasonable could almost enable a lie. The manifestation of the Bible as a book is a miracle itself and is arguably the most arguably arguable argument in all of argumentitativnesss' orators. These texts are mere flows when the mind is blistered from distractions and discipline, the images projected by iteration are simple words from a dude in the pre radio days; as if some guy can simply write a book and disappear and nobody makes money on it, but that could be the cost of making such a text.
The startling truth to choosing to uphold the social hierarchy is that most of the time the folks designing the positions have all but abandoned the ideals put forth at first which helped create the momentum needed to establish the concept of the each member of our society being responsible for the fellow man. The tensions in this ideological struggle tends to be bound in the lack of congruency between the lax philosophies of Eastern and Mystic religions (which some philosophers argue could be considered a suicide cult when the conditions are met), the utopian dream of tolerance held by the Non-believers, and the primitive hostility of Islam; it is a deception many centuries in the making, and it is as disgusting as it was on day one.
Many Non-believers will be quick to point out the similarities between the Abrahamic religions as a reason for their disbelief; this is, in my opinion, the best and worst case for Christianity. The differences are as profound as night and day to a caterpillar; a simple look at history reveals the intent of Islam is to convert with the alternative being death, the intent of Eastern and Mystic religions is to discover some "secret" knowledge, the intent of Non-believers is to live a life full of ones self; these are not only selfish, but dangerous as each claims a moral high ground but none can substantiate such a daunting claim without losing the support of reason and, therefore, civility. The Left has claimed over and over that this is not matter of morals, it is a matter of reason, yet they lack the very element which is vital to the case being attempted.
In summation, it becomes very difficult to maintain a set of values and morals in a definite, ethical, sustainable, reasonable, and logical fashion when an objective truth is removed, and I do not pity those who attempt such a feat. These "religions" are the fabric being worn by those in society that only seek to please themselves and forward the agenda of those who set the frame of mind as that subject which cannot be questioned. So then the subtext of the Left should be: Come, Do What Thou Wilt. Again, these ideologies are dangerous and very cult oriented. Do the due diligence if you are serious about looking into these matters, but don't be suckered by the promises of rainbows and a liberty which cannot be found through our legal system. Hopefully, we can continue to analyze these beliefs and expose the frauds and point only toward the Truth. Be careful!