Are Mass Shootings a Reflection of Our Godless Society?

“God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers?”

Glenn revisited the famous “God is dead” quote from German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche on today’s show, analyzing how our society has disintegrated since people decided they no longer believed in God and asking if that loss has encouraged mass shootings. When we’re told that God doesn’t exist, there are no heroes to look up to and even science can be ignored, what else can we expect but chaos?

“How much … has the foundation for our society been laid to grow these killers?” Glenn asked. “How much of just the removal of basic principles and then not replacing them with anything other than gobbledygook?”

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: So I want to tell you about a movement now to get schools just to recognize the sixth commandment. Just can be can we -- can we recognize the sixth. Don't need to have all ten. Let's just put one in. You can't murder.

How much of this has been -- how much of this has been -- has the foundation for our society been laid to grow these killers? How much of just the removal of basic principles and then not replacing them with anything other than gobbledegook.

We're doing this now with science. We're now saying that just because you say you're a man or say you're a woman, you are. Rejecting science. We've always been told, as religious people, you are science deniers. But we're now being told that just because you say you're a woman, you are a woman. Denying the X and Y chromosomes.

What is happening to us? What happens to us is, no matter what the god is, no matter what the -- we used to -- develop a society based on what the shoe box says. And inside the shoe box is a Magic 8-Ball. And that's what we've set our society up on.

Well, we might go and say, you know, we -- am I a woman? Shake the Magic 8-Ball and it says, ask again later.

And we build our whole foundation on that. Well, if you take away the Magic 8-Ball, you better replace it with something else that is going to decide what is true and what is not.

We've taken away our Magic 8-Ball. We've taken away the truth that we all recognize, the Judeo-Christian truth. We have taken -- we have taken God and chased him out in our society. What made western culture different was, we looked to Jesus. Jesus was a messenger of peace.

Now, religion's got screwed up all the time. All the time. But generally speaking, when we would take these big leaps forward, it was because we were basing our society and the greatest men in our society, on Jesus.

They were the ones who sacrificed it all. They were the ones who were peaceful, who were gentle, who were giving, who were healing. Who were listeners and comforters. Who took more than their fair share for everybody else. And that was something that was grown inside of us.

Now we've gotten rid of that character. And what have we replaced it with. Nothing. There is no hero. There is no archetype. There is nothing.

Point to what we're all striving to be. You know, we all -- we all chanted -- well, not all of us, but many chanted for change. To what?

To what? There has to be a point on the horizon. To what?

Many of us said, you're going to make these changes, and they're never going to be enough. It's never going to be enough. Because you haven't told us -- if you told us that look, we just want people to be fairly treated. Gay people should be able to get married. Fine. The way to solve this is to get the government out of marriage.

Otherwise, you cause far too many problems. So get government out of marriage. As a Christian, I don't get anything from the government declaring my marriage is sacred or valid. Who cares?

What we've done, however, is created a system to where now, what about the wedding cake? What about this? What about that? And the government has to be involved. That's not American. That's not freedom.

But because we don't have a point on the horizon, where we're saying, we're headed for that archetype. That's what we want. And this is what people are like, in that archetype. And they're well-defined characters, in all kinds of situations. We know how Jesus acted when he was angry. We know Jesus, how he acted when he was being scourged and accused. We know when he had the power to heal. We know how he acted when he was offered up the wealth of the earth. We know every scenario. We know.

Where is that archetype for us?

This is -- you know, I'm -- I'm reading Pinkerton and I'm also reading Jordan Peterson at the same time. And they're both coming at the problems of our society in very similar ways. Jordan Peterson, however, is saying there is a case for God here. Pinkerton is saying there is no case for God.

As I'm looking at -- as I'm looking at things, I'm realizing how foolish I have been. And how much -- how much I have to learn.

And how I have -- how I have allowed people to shape my thinking. For instance, I've always thought Nietzsche was, you know, God is dead. And it's nihilistic. And it's all over. And there's nothing good.

Nihilism. No, that's what he was warning against. And it's amazing, because he -- he makes this case that God is dead in something that he calls The Parable of the Madman. And the ending is what we've done.

We didn't listen to what he was saying. Listen to this Parable of a Madman.

Have you not heard of the madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours and ran into the marketplace and cried incessantly, I'm looking for God, I'm looking for God. And many of those who did not believe in God were standing together there and excited considerable laughter. And they said, oh, you lost him? Oh, did he lose his way like a child? Is he hiding? Oh, he's afraid of us. Has he gone on a voyage? Maybe he's emigrated. They shouted and they laughed.

And the madman sprang into their midst and pierced them with his glances. So here he is, around a bunch of people, who are mocking the fact that he's looking for God.

He says, where has he gone? I'll tell you, we have killed him. You and I. We are his murderers. But how have we done this? How are we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon?

What did we do when we unchained the earth from its sun? Is it moving, or are we moving? Or are we perpetually falling backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there even an up or down left now? Ask yourself these questions. Is there an up or down left now? Do you know what is up, down, sideways? Do you know which way we're falling?

Are we falling to the left or are we falling to the right? Are we falling, or are we falling backward?

There's no consensus to this at all. We have no idea. That's what this, quote, madman was saying to the people.

We don't have any idea. Is it not more and more night coming all the time? Has it not become colder? Ask yourself that question. Are we not a colder society than we were 20 years ago, 40 years ago? Are we not colder in many ways?

Doesn't it seem like darkness is getting earlier and earlier now in our society?

He then says, the famous quote from Nietzsche, God is dead. God remains dead. Here is what we don't follow.

And we have killed him. How shall we murderers of all murderers console ourselves now?

Think of this. If there is no God, who is consoling? Where do you get your -- where do you get your peace, your solace?

He's saying, because in that society, that's -- everybody found it with God. That which is holiest and mightiest of all, that the world has yet possessed, has bled to death under our knives. Who is going to wipe this blood off of us? With what water could we purify ourselves? What festivals of atonement? What sacred games will we need to invent?

Now, think of that. We had a system. It was the atonement. It was for Christians. It was Jesus bore the sins so you can start over. Well, what is our -- what is our ritual of atonement now?

We don't have one as a society. There is no one who makes up for everything. There is no one who can forgive our sins. We just have to do it. You just forgive it. All you have to do is just stop drinking. Just stop drinking. All you have to do is stop eating so much. Just stop eating so much.

That's all you have to do. Then why don't we do it?

You know what I have to do? I just have to start exercising. Why don't we do it? There are things that we tell ourselves all the time that we just have to get over it, but why don't we?

That was an important ritual that we had. Now, here's where it gets interesting. Listen to what the people said.

Here the madman fell silent. He regarded his listeners -- they were silent as well and stared at him.

At last, he threw down his lantern to the ground and broke and it went out. I have come to, too, early, he said to them, my time is not yet come. The tremendous event is still on its way. Still traveling. It hasn't reached the ears of men yet. Lightning and thunder require time. The light of the stars require time.

Deeds require time, even after they are done, before they can even be seen and heard. This deed is still more distant than them from the distant stars. And yet, they had done it themselves. Meaning, Nietzsche is telling us now, what are you going to invent? Who is going to be your God? Who is going to make your rules?

Now, remember, he is writing this in Germany. And he is saying the Germans have lost their God. You're now going to have to restructure. So what is it? So it was built on the Progressive Era. It was built on science and pseudoscience. According to man. And man said, what you know we have to do is treat everybody equally? We have to be a collective. Instead of God saying, each of you are individuals, man said, yeah, but we're going to protect the individuals by working as a collective.

That led to death camps, death chambers, gas chambers, gulags, all over the world.

We have to fix reason firmly in her seat. But we also have to realize, we've killed God in our society. And it's going to end the same way it does every time a society kills God. If you want to kill God, then what are you replacing it with? Let's be very specific on that.

What is our God? What gives us eternal truth? What is that point on the horizon that we need to affix and look at and say, we're headed in that direction? If you get rid of the God who gave us the right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as individuals, if you get rid of him, then it's logical to have a conversation about getting rid of those rights.

But then, who is going to issue our rights? And what exactly do they mean?

Here's a question unique to our times: "Should I tell my father 'Happy Father's Day,' even though he (she?) is now one of my mothers?"

Father's Day was four days ago, yes, but this story is just weird enough to report on. One enjoyable line to read was this gem from Hollywood Gossip: "Cait is a woman and a transgender icon, but she is also and will always be the father of her six children."

RELATED: If Bruce was never a he and always a she, who won the men's Olympic gold in 1976?

Imagine reading that to someone ten — even five — years ago. And, honestly, there's something nice about it. But the strangeness of its having ever been written overpowers any emotional impact it might bring.

"So lucky to have you," wrote Kylie Jenner, in the Instagram caption under pre-transition pictures of Bruce Jenner.

Look. I risk sounding like a tabloid by mere dint of having even mentioned this story, but the important element is the cultural sway that's occurring. The original story was that a band of disgruntled Twitter users got outraged about the supposed "transphobic" remarks by Jenner's daughter.

But, what we should be saying is, "who the hell cares?" Who cares what one Jenner says to another — and more importantly and on a far deeper level — who cares what some anonymous Twitter user has to say?

When are we going to stop playing into the hands of the Twitter mob?

When are we going to stop playing into the hands of the Twitter mob? Because, at the moment, they've got it pretty good. They have a nifty relationship with the mainstream media: One or two Twitter users get outraged by any given thing — in this case Jenner and supposed transphobia. In return, the mainstream media use the Twitter comment as a source.

Then, a larger Twitter audience points to the article itself as proof that there's some kind of systemic justice at play. It's a closed-market currency, where the negative feedback loop of proof and evidence is composed of faulty accusations. Isn't it a hell of a time to be alive?

These days, when Americans decide to be outraged about something, we really go all out.

This week's outrage is, of course, the Trump administration's "zero tolerance" policy toward illegal immigration along the southern border. Specifically, people are upset over the part of the policy that separates children from their parents when the parents get arrested.

RELATED: Where were Rachel Maddow's tears for immigrant children in 2014?

Lost in all the outrage is that the President is being proactive about border security and is simply enforcing the law. Yes, we need to figure out a less clumsy, more compassionate way of enforcing the law, but children are not being flung into dungeons and fed maggots as the media would have you believe.

But having calm, reasonable debates about these things isn't the way it's done anymore. You have to make strong, sweeping announcements so the world knows how righteous your indignation is.

That's why yesterday, the governors of Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island and Connecticut declared they are withholding or recalling their National Guard troops from the U.S.-Mexico border until this policy of separating children from their parents is rescinded.

Adding to the media stunt nature of this entire "crisis," it turns out this defiant announcement from these five governors is mostly symbolic. Because two months ago, when President Trump called for 4,000 additional National Guard troops to help patrol the border, large numbers of troops were not requested from those five states. In fact, no troops were requested at all from Rhode Island. But that didn't stop Rhode Island's Democratic governor, Gina Raimondo, from announcing she would refuse to send troops if she were asked. She called the family separation policy, "immoral, unjust and un-American."

There's so much outrage, we're running short on adjectives.

The governors of Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New York all used the word "inhumane" in their statements condemning the Trump administration policy. There's so much outrage, we're running short on adjectives.

In a totally unrelated coincidence, four of these five governors are running for re-election this year.

I've made my position clear — separating these children from their parents is a bad policy and we need to stop. We need to treat these immigrants with the kind of compassion we'd want for our own children. And I said the same thing in 2014 when no one cared about the border crisis.

If consistency could replace even just a sliver of the outrage in America, we would all be a lot better off.

I think we can all agree, both on the Left and the Right, that children who have been caught up in illegal immigration is an awful situation. But apparently what no one can agree on is when it matters to them. This past weekend, it suddenly — and even a little magically — began to matter to the Left. Seemingly out of nowhere, they all collectively realized this was a problem and all rushed to blame the Trump administration.

RELATED: These 3 things need to happen before we can fix our border problem

Here's Rachel Maddow yesterday:

I seem to remember getting mocked by the Left for showing emotion on TV, but I'll give her a pass here. This is an emotional situation. But this is what I can't give her a pass on: where the heck was this outrage and emotion back in 2014? Because the same situation going on today — that stuff Maddow and the rest of the Left have only just now woken up to — was going on back in July 2014! And it was arguably worse back then.

I practically begged and pleaded for people to wake up to what was going on. We had to shed light on how our immigration system was being manipulated by people breaking our laws, and they were using kids as pawns to get it done. But unlike the gusto the Left is using now to report this story, let's take a look at what Rachel Maddow thought was more important back in 2014.

On July 1, 2014, Maddow opened her show with a riveting monologue on how President Obama was hosting a World Cup viewing party. That's hard-hitting stuff right there.

On July 2, 2014, Maddow actually acknowledged kids were at the border, but she referenced Health and Human Services only briefly and completely rushed through what was actually happening to these kids. She made a vague statement about a "policy" stating where kids were being taken after their arrival. She also blamed Congress for not acting.

See any difference in reporting there from today? That "policy" she referenced has suddenly become Trump's "new" policy, and it isn't Congress's fault… it's all on the President.

She goes on throughout the week.

On July 7, 2014, her top story was something on the Koch brothers. Immigration was only briefly mentioned at the end of the show. This trend continued all the way through the week. I went to the border on July 19. Did she cover it? Nope. In fact, she didn't mention kids at the border for the rest of the month. NOT AT ALL.

Do you care about immigrant kids who have been caught in the middle of a broken immigration system or not?

Make up your minds. Is this an important issue or not? Do you care about immigrant kids who have been caught in the middle of a broken immigration system or not? Do you even care to fix it, or is this what it looks like — just another phony, addicted-to-outrage political stunt?

UPDATE: Here's how this discussion went on radio. Watch the video below.

Glenn gives Rachel Maddow the benefit of the doubt

Rachel Maddow broke down in tears live on her MSNBC show over border crisis.

Progressives think the Obamas are a gift to the world. But their gift is apparently more of the metaphorical kind. It doesn't extend to helpful, tangible things like saving taxpayers money. Illinois has approved $224 million to pay for street and transportation upgrades around the planned site of the Obama Presidential Center. The catch is that Illinois taxpayers will have to cover $200 million of that cost. For a presidential museum.

Eight years of multiplying the national debt wasn't enough for Barack Obama. Old fleecing habits die hard. What's another $200 million here and there, especially for something as important as an Obama tribute center?

RELATED: Want to cure millennials' financial woes? Reform the payroll tax.

That's all well and good except Illinois can't even fund its pension system. The state has a $137 billion funding shortfall. That means every person in Illinois owes $11,000 for pensions, and there is no plan to fix the mess. Unless Illinois progressives have discovered a new kind of math, this doesn't really add up. You can't fund pensions, but you're going to figure out a way to milk the public for another $200 million to help cover the cost of a library?

It's hard to imagine who in their right mind would think this will be money well spent. Well, except for maybe Chicago Mayor and former Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel who said, "The state's… investment in infrastructure improvements near the Obama Center on the South Side of Chicago is money well spent."

Some presidential overreach lasts longer than others.

The spending has already been signed into law, even though the Obama library has not received construction approval yet. Part of the holdup is that the proposed site is on public land in historic Jackson Park. That doesn't seem very progressive of the Obamas, but, you know, for certain presidents, you go above and beyond. It's just what you do. Some presidential overreach lasts longer than others.

Here's the thing about taxing the peasants so the king can build a fancy monument to himself – it's wrong. And completely unnecessary. The Obamas have the richest friends on the planet who could fund this project in their sleep. If the world simply must have a tricked-out Obama museum, then let private citizens take out their wallets voluntarily.

As the Mercury Museum proved this weekend, it is possible to build an exhibit with amazing artifacts that attracts a ton of visitors – and it cost taxpayers approximately zero dollars.