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?

God is the simplest possible conspiracy theory.

God, guns, and gold

A few decades ago it first occurred to me that American conservatism can be boiled down to an obsession with god, guns, and money (or to complete the alliteration, god, guns, and gold). When it came to joining church and state as in "prayer in schools," for example, they were for it. When it came to enlarging the military budget or "using force," or the death penalty, or anything having to do with the satisfaction of death, they were for it. And when it came to any issue where profits were in conflict with people or the environment, they usually sided with profits.

What I didn't realize is that many conservatives are proud to declare this obsession, which implies a different, curtailed usage of certain words and symbols, (or a profound cynicism maybe.). If you grew up with the combination of religion and guns in the home and with making a living, then "god, guns, and money" seems like a good representation of an honest, well-intentioned, and totally ethical philosphy. But these words have other meanings in different contexts. My main question is whether conservatives are aware that these words have additional meanings to other people in their own country and on the planet. Do they know what they are communicating to others? Do they have any empathy regarding their terminology?


from http://www.patriotdepot.com/ggag.aspx

Let's break it down:

God: For conservatives, it seems, this word has unambiguously positive meanings. It implies morality, humility, dedication, principled living, respect for a higher authority. But for many others it could also imply medieval, pre-enlightenment world views, narrow-mindedness, blind adherence to oppressive traditions, institutional corruption due to lack of checks and balances and critical thinking, intolerance of other belief systems, violence in god's name.

Guns: For conservatives this word stands for the right to bear arms in the defense of liberty and personal safety, and for the official mission of the military which is to defend the country. All that seems reasonable. But the word guns also conjures up violence, killing, war, destruction. The US military used to be called the war department. Now that it is much more war-oriented, it is called the defense department, and is the largest in the world and in history. Guns (meaning weapons) are also a huge industry with a long history of illegality and corruption. Guns are a form of power, and power corrupts. Not good, not christian, right?

Gold: I assume what is meant here is economic survival, self realization, productivity, prosperity, entrepreneurship, providing for your family, independence, personal fiscal responsibility as opposed to being taxed or receiving welfare. (I think gold also addresses a preference for the harder gold standard, as opposed to the fluctuating paper we use now.) But the word gold also connotes greed, selfishness, corruption, materialism, shallowness.

In short, the three words could easily be misread as intolerance, violence, and greed.

An additional question: do the promoters of this verbal trinity know that it could come across as essentially anti-democratic? Granted, the words are intended to promote rights: the right to worship, the right to bear arms, and the right to pursue happiness. But, conservatism is usually very protective of existing institutions. 

Politically we have three institutions here: the church (god), the military (guns), and the corporation (gold). All three are basically undemocratic. To be sure, many religious denominations have democratic traditions - protestantism is certainly more democratic than catholicism. But the language and the basic relation between humanity and the supernatural is that of the vertical aristocratic state: higher authority, to serve god, glory, lord, king, kingdom. The military, also, is explicitly hierarchical, with higher level members sporting their decorations like the royalty of old Europe. It doesn't use a system of one-soldier/one-vote to promote each person to the next level. And of course its culture is very much about obedience, service, loyalty, honor, uniformity, etc. The corporation, as well, is hierarchical. Yes, there are voting stockholders among "public" corporations, and some companies have worker input or some internal redress system, but generally corporations are run on a top-down model, with appointed positions, resembling the vatican and the defense department much more than the American democratic system. God, guns, and gold, although intended as a philosophy which values the individual over the government, politically prioritizes democracy's more undemocratic institutions. God, guns and gold, sounds to me like a call for everything that the ancestors of most current Americans escaped from.

Besides the assumed absence of god, guns, and gold's negative connotations, there is the greater problem of how the symbols contradict each other. If the first principle is god, which in the American context usually implies christianity, then the other principles need to be viewed according the bible. The new testament makes many diverse arguments, but its ultimate message, by shear repetition, is compassion for the less fortunate, i.e. peace and selflessness. Guns and gold, I would say, represent the exact opposite of peace and selflessness. In this internal contradiction of principles lies the ultimate creepiness of god, guns, and gold. 

A philosphy that mixes religion with weaponry and currency seems not only hypocritical, but eager to repeat history. It reminds one of the horrors of history, in which religion, despite its official messages of peace and selflessness, has been used in violent campaigns for very materialistic goals — think crusades, feudal wars, imperialism, colonialism.

In other words, do its promoters really want to call for a repeat of god using guns for gold?

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.

Comedians are often atheists because they can recognize a funny hypothetical situation.

Religion is a game of telephone mistaken for a direct line.

The holy trinity of circular reason

Also works as a computer program loop:

10 The bible is the word of god

20 What the bible says is true

30 If the bible says it is the word of god then Goto 10

This circular logic is what stumps me every time someone on the radio or in person quotes the bible. Why quote the bible to someone who may not believe in it? Quoting the bible is like quoting your uncle. "As my uncle once said: two plus two equals five." Wow! If your uncle said it, let me take it seriously. Wait, who's your uncle ...?

The purest form of evil is moral certitude.

What better way to shield yourself from critique than to claim the unknowable?

Ethics is to religion what home cooking is to fast food.

Why do we believe in the necessity of belief?

In conversations, I often hear the emphatic phrase “I believe in …” referring to any controversial or improbable subject. For example, I hear “I believe in life after death." This is usually someone who has not experienced near death, but has decided based on second hand information that the case is plausible enough to commit to a belief in it. In the absence of knowledge, belief is declared. Those who have actually had a near death experience tend to say, “I know what I saw.” In other words, they are beyond the need for a declaration of belief.
It seems that even among people who are not religious, there is the belief in the necessity of belief. There is even: “I believe God doesn’t exist." Why are we so programmed against a position of ongoing uncertainty, of a confident “maybe?” The mind has plenty of shelf space for various contradicting arguments. Why can’t we hold multiple positions and accrue evidence for and against all of them? Yes, each position reflects the ideas of its opposite, but too firm positions close the mind.
I recognize that in many cases a strong belief, regardless of evidence, is highly motivational and therapeutic. Great mosques and cathedrals are evidence that belief can propel ordinary people to create the almost impossible. And there is healing power in belief as well. But this is only an argument for the function, the power of belief, its usefulness — not its necessity.
When it comes to the ultimate nature of existence, I know that I don’t know and I assume, but don’t believe, everyone else also doesn’t know. I am perfectly at peace with that.

I love this interview with Bertrand Russell where he says: "... and if you can't find out if it's true or not you should suspend judgment". Why is this "suspension" such a taboo?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrxSkc68Ci0

One more link: Larry David:

"If I really believed that stuff, I'd keep it to myself."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1yOckwMm_k&feature=related

Science learnes from mistakes. Religion ritualizes them.

Dangerous when organized

There are five things that are more dangerous when organized: crime, violence, greed, irrationality, and selfishness. Organized crime is the mafia; organized violence is the military; organized greed is the corporation; organized irrationality is the church, organized selfishness is the nation.

The danger of organization in each of these cases is acceptance and multiplication. In the context of individual action, all of these tendencies are recognized as wrong or at least problematic. In the context of an organization, the pattern of "people do as others do" (conformity) comes into play. Behavior is no longer questioned, but protected and encouraged by the institution. The institution undermines individual self-criticism.

The danger of multiplication is committing otherwise reprehensible acts on a large scale. Wrong, multiplied, should demand outrage, multiplied, but it rarely does. For example, violence is a taboo for virtually anyone. Whole news cycles are devoted to the outrage of a single, scandalous murder. But violence on a massive scale by the (own) military — this applies to any nation — is actively justified, not only by those involved, but instinctively by large sections of society who consider the military part of the larger institution of "nation".

The individual act is considered a matter of debate, but if organized and multiplied, it can count on significant protection from critique within the institution. This leads to further acceptance and multiplication of the next act.