Judeo-christianity is voluntary serfdom to a hypothetical king.

How could it be that in the US, where slavery and aristocracy are officially rejected, where freedom and individuality are more possible than in most of the world, that so many people voluntarily recreate the demeaning relationship of king/subject and master/slave?

It's not just disturbing that people are willing to see themselves in a relationship with someone that is likely imaginary, but that they choose a relationship of self-enslavement. How shameful.

Does this mean human beings desire to be dominated, that happiness comes from submission to hierarchy?

A brief history of modern life

Phase 1: Not doing everything yourself anymore:
Electricity, running hot water, the oven, the refrigerator, the supermarket, processed foods, the broker, the insurance company, the travel agent, the dating service, the government …

Phase 2: Not doing everything yourself anymore, while sitting down:
radio, television, the telephone, the automobile, the train, the airplane, the drive-through...

Phase 3: Doing everything yourself again, while sitting down:
Online-banking, -investing, -lobbying, -publishing, -travel planning, -reviewing, -defining, -mapping-shopping, -selling, -dating …

Life demands hubris but teaches humility.

The power of lying honestly.

Do inspiring schemers like the pope, Hitler, L. Ron Hubbard, George Bush 1&2, Limbaugh, know they are duping people? Or do they believe their own lies?

I am convinced they believe, at least to some extent, their own nonsense. They have artfully managed to close the circle of manipulation and guilt. To manipulate others you have to lie (or let's say that's the easier way to do it); to not feel guilt about lying, you have to lie to yourself. If the lies you tell others are consistent with those you tell yourself, you become free from the truth, and gain a formidable advantage.

Experience creates the most stubborn form of prejudice: postjudice.

Prejudice, the act of judging without experience, based on hearsay and conditioning and projection towards the individual, instead of careful examination, is clearly tragic. But, I'd like to propose that "postjudice", which would be the act of judging based on personal experience, can also be tragic. Personal experience is most convincing, and much harder to counter when conclusions based on it are off the mark. Only a maximum of personal experience can counter the impressions of original experience.