His sermon was indistinguishable from those delivered (not just at Christmas but for life) by the heads of Greenpeace or Friends of the Earth. Williams did not speak about Christian morality; in fact, he didn\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t utter the m-word at all. He said little about men\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s responsibility to love one another and God, the two Commandments Jesus Christ said we should live by. Instead he talked about our role as janitors on planet Earth, who must stop plundering the \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcwarehouse of natural resources\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 and ensure that we clean up after ourselves.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
What? You are complaining because he didn’t make unfollowable narrow-minded pronouncements about “personal morality” and had the gall to discuss issues of genuine morality? Did I misunderstand something here? <\/p>\n
(Maybe he didn’t just repeat meaningless injunctions to love each other, possibly because these religious wallpaper-style admonitions don’t actually appear to work.)<\/p>\n
One thing that really ignites O’Neill’s easily sparked avowedly atheist ire is:<\/p>\n
in his Christmas sermon, the Archbishop of Canterbury quoted extensively, not from the Bible, but from Richard Dawkins, who is considered by many to be the Rottweiler of the New Atheism.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
So, just let me recap here? Signs of a churchman’s taking onboard rational scientific arguments and daring to suggest that it might be immoral not to leave a working planet for future generations are BAD?<\/p>\n
At a time of such low horizons, is it any wonder that some people still do cling on to God, and seek transcendence from mundane everyday life through a belief in divinity? There is more humanity in their \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcsuperhuman\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 delusions than there is in the monkeyman realism of eco-Christians and New Atheists<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Monkeyman realism?<\/p>\n
He is saying that he despises a churchperson who accepts evolution and argues for a broader concept of what ethics are than you can find in a old book of fables. The implications of his words are that a bible-thumping creationist hypocrite would somehow be better.<\/p>\n
Don’t fret Brendan. There are more than enough of these to go round. The Phelps are maybe a little too extreme even for your taste but plenty more bible-thumpers would fill the patriarchal priest role you prefer. (Tip. Wingnut daily is a good place to start looking for them.) The Islamic faith has a good few as well. <\/p>\n
Any danger of the world’s religions becoming too ecological and rational is greatly exaggerated. So you can sleep easy in your bed and stop worrying about dangerous atheist rottweilers, Brendan.<\/p>\n