Slavery to False Gods

Bonjour!
(Hello!)

Part I: Slavery

In this little talk I will show you that religion is slavery. Let us make an important distinction here. A SYSTEM OF SPIRITUAL BELIEFS is an individual's pursuit of answers to abstract ideas and problems, usually involving good, evil, life, and death. RELIGION is an organized, codefied, collective system of spiritual values that discourages individual interpretation to maintain orthodoxy and also engages in acts of proselytization and fiscal extraction. As soon as a system of belief becomes a religion, it becomes a form of slavery and a source of conflict.

All religions and systems of belief have very basic rules and ethics that form the basis of society. These rules are now codefied in state criminal law. Since most of these rules and ethics are common world wide, we can say that no particular religion is based on any better grounds than another, or any better than state laws. Since modern states create and enforce the basic laws of civilization, they have underwrote the need for religion to maintain social order, and made its political value obsolete.

In the past, religions have been employed by the state to enforce their will on numerous and distant inhabitants that they would otherwise have difficulty communicating to. By using the common ground of religion, which often is a pre-existing institution, states have manipulated their subjects into obeying their laws and their orders. Religion has been used as a pretext for difference between Humans, and thus a petty excuse for conflict. 'Religious' wars are often a cover for other state objectives, such as gold or oil. Religion is a form of state control.

Conversely, religion has been used to control the state. A clerical elite may rise and influence politicians. Their wealth, often generated through non-economic means of extraction from an ignorant public convinced, or coerced, into supporting an organized system of belief. Religious taxes go to support a parasitic class of clerics who benefit from the wealth generated while contributing nothing to the economy. They use their wealth and spiritual influence amongst citizens to control government affairs and introduce political practices that benefit the established spiritual organization.

In both of these cases, we call a religiously influenced state a theocracy. Theocracies are bad because they divert economic resources to the goals of an organized religion. Those resources might otherwise be spent on social programs, debt relief, or tax breaks. In our modern world, there is no room for theocracy because it becomes a drain on all classes economically, and on the country physically. In the Medieval Age, relgions became the basis of social welfare programs. Today that role has been appropriated by the state. Without this social role, and without the requirement to promulgate codes of law and ethics, organized religions have been reduced to their spiritual role alone. So why are there still organized religions if their social purpose has been acquired by the state?

Money.

Non-mainstream religions that require money and other sacrifices of its members we call CULTS. The only difference between a cult an a religion are a longstanding history of orthodoxy, and community enforcement of that orthodoxy.

Mainstream religions still collect money to build expensive holy buildings and maintain the clerical heirarchy in luxury. They still attempt to involve themselves in social programs, but those programs often have a proselytizing dimension to them. In the Medieval Age, religious organizations were often the largest landholders in most states. Since the 18th century much of that has been swept away, but religions still seek new sources of revenue to maintain their opulence.

Often religions are hypocritical. This is the fault of the Human desire for accumulation. Humans are economic beings, and will seek that which improves their standard of living by a variety of methods. The end result is that money collected by organized religions often ends up in the hands of their clerical staff. Most religions are supposed to abhor money and embrace poverty or at least frugal living. Very few clerics are so observant. By their example, congregations of members of religious orders often follow similar patterns of accumulation.

Most religions demand peace and good will towards others. This is rarely practiced, and in the past religions have justified conflict against other religions so that they might relish in the spoils of war. Along the same lines, religion can be used as a vehicle for difference from other Humans, and even a percieved superiority. No religion makes any person better than another. No religion itself is better than any Human, group of Humans, or another system of belief or religion. In fact, most religions are equally guilty of intellectual, physical, or moral slavery.

By enforcing a system of beliefs with the threat of hell, the devil, or other assorted evils in the afterlife, a religion can coerce its members into obeying its will and paying into its coffers. By maintaining a monopoly over the interpretation of a system of belief, a religion is in fact practicing dominance and thus slavery over its members. Without the right to exercise thought about spiritual subjects, Humans are being deprived of their liberty. By existing in a state of fear over the concequences of their actions in the afterlife, Humans are unable to exercise liberty in their physical lives. By forcing a religion or spiritual belief upon another Human, a religion or community is taking away the liberty of other Humans to self-determine their own spiritual beliefs.

Religion supports ignorance. By preventing the average subscriber from interpreting the basis of a religion, and enforcing orthodoxy within that religion, it is in fact denying the Human right to explore individual knowledge. Take for example the Catholic Church, which used illiteracy first, and then Latin, to prevent subscribers from reading, understanding, interpreting, and questioning the Bible and thus the basis of that religion.

Relgions thus are a form of mental slavery. They do not allow an individual to interpret their own spiritual world. Religions extend their slavery by capturing communities, societies, and governments. They force others to conform, or at least, constrain the will of others through orthodox community enforcement. Religion has been the basis of some of the world's most terrible and gruesome wars. Religions are among the richest non-political institutions (although sometimes they can be closely tied to governments). In most cases, religions are not democratically representative, and heirarchies are imposed from above by appointment.

Part II: False Gods

Most systems of belief and most religions contain some sort of supreme being or beings. We call these gods, spirits, or deities. Traditionally, systems of belief were created to explain occurances that were otherwise unexplainable to primitive Humans. They were used to define the causes of good and evil, unfairness, strange events, and the inconsistancy of nature. They also helped form community links and became the basis of common culture, strengthening multi-lateral action that is essential to civilization. Over time these beliefs evolved into strong systems and religions that continued into this traditional role. In the 21st century, Human knowledge has expanded greatly and many previously unexplainable circumstances are now well known to us through the application of science.

Many things that were incomprehensible to our ancestors are now understood and mastered by Human ingenuity and technology. Further, science has exposed the supernatural as merely natural occurances that we now have the tools to grasp. Education and the stability that our civilization has offered in the past century has contributed to the Human capability for individual thought and comprehension. We now have the tools in our minds to understand the world around us. Many have realized that the world can function without ancient systems of belief, and have abandoned these now archaic forms of thought. Through simple understanding and thought, Humans are able to discount old myths and beliefs and substitute them with common sense.

For those who still believe in a spiritual world external to our own, take a moment and question why you would like to possess that belief. I will now allay such reasoning.

1: You do not need to fear the unknown or respite. Fear is a tool used by organized religions to support their slavery. The unknown is simply that which you do not already possess knowledge of. If something is not yet understood by Human thought, it may well soon be.

2: There does not have to be a greater being out there. That is a leftover from previous centuries and old mental institutions. You are free to explore your own system of beliefs, and are not constrained by the potential presence of an almighty.

3: You do not need religion in hard times. Religion does not provide real comfort. That comfort is actually derived from within the Human self, not some external force.

The fundamental fault in spiritual belief is that any belief removes the power of the self. By believing in something else and seeking assistance from the spiritual plain, you are denying belief in yourself. If people believed in themselves as much as they do in religion, they would be stronger and better off. Entrust your spirit/soul to yourself, not to some intangible force. By relying on religion, you are in fact supported by a crutch, much like a baby's security blanket. That crutch prevents you from believing in yourself. The Human self is where you will find all the spiritual strength you require. When you do not believe in yourself as a strong, powerful force as well as a physical entity, you are consenting to your own subordination beneath the beliefs of another.

Still not convinced? In the world there are countless religions and systems of spiritual beliefs. By accepting one, you are claiming that all others are wrong. At most, one religion can command a billion members (Christianity, Islam). There are over 700 million Hindus (which actually is composed of countless different systems in itself), and over a billion Chinese who follow a vague set of semi-spiritual codes. Within each religion are various sects and degrees of belief, and there are also degrees of observance within each. Can you really say that one takes precedence over another? If there is a god, which religion accurately portrays it? Are you willing to risk your existance on the premises of one religion? What if your assumptions are wrong?

But wait! There's more! It is impossible to prove or disprove the existance of a superior being. We can thus say that the idea of the divine is incomprehensible because Human thought is based on proof. If the divine does interfere with daily life, its effects are intangible. We cannot discount the divine on that basis. However, we can discount it on the fact that there is no evidence. Every other theory in Human history has required some form of evidence to convince others of the validity of that theory. Somehow, systems of beleif have managed to defy that causality. Since this theory (that's what it is, a Human theory) has no evidence, we must therefore assume that it is invalid until otherwise proven. It is better to not believe in the wrong god, and thus avoid punishment. Better still is to avoid the pitfalls of spiritual belief and rationalize the world around you.

Systems of belief are Human constructs; made by Humans, for Humans. Animals in nature do not have spiritual beliefs. They don't get down on their knees and prey. Therefore we can assume that only Humans possess the necessary framework for creating spiritual beliefs. Since animals also do not provide tangible evidence or knowledge for spirits or a divine being, we can assume that the idea of a divine world exists only to Humans. If Humans are the only species capable of engineering systems of belief, and they did so in great variety, we can suppose that Humans at one time had creative control over the formation of spiritual ideology. If belief is only a Human construct, created for reasons listed at the beginning of this section, then we can assume that we also have the power to dismantle these beliefs. Historical evidence has also shown that Humans are capable of complimenting and/or subustituting one belief with another, making systems of belief interchangeable and not hermetically sealed.

As Humanity began to encounter new systems of belief and new religions, it realized that an exclusive, homogeneous religion was impossible given the increasing plurality of our nations. Different ideas cause people to think. In highly diverse areas, religious observance tends to be lower than in homogenious communities. This is because there exists an alternative way of being and doing that influences others and opens the Human consciousness to a whole array of different systems. A growing trend in diverse communities is aetheism. This is the inevitable result of open mindedness, progress, and individual thought. The abandonment of beleif, in all its forms, represents the individual's desire for freedom and self realization. By hanging on to archaic dependancies, Humans have limited their self development and hampered liberty.

So why are all religions false? Because to accept one is to deny all others, and in any event conversion and aetheism seems to have no evidence of ramifications. To believe in an afterlife is to enslave your temporal life to it. In most views of the afterlife, there are some pretty rigorous standards to reach the positive or 'good' afterlife. These standards tend to limit an individual's freedoms and liberty to pursue their own self-styled goals.

To sum up, by subscribing to any religion or system of belief, a Human enslaves themself to a belief that exists only because others believe in it. All gods are false because any form of subservience to a non-existant entity usurps the strength of the Human self, and thus is slavery.

Part III: Hypocracy

Here's where we have a little fun. In a political cartoon pokeing fun at the 2004 US election, we see the United States geographically divided into two sections; those resolved to install a Democratic candidate, and those that constitute 'Jesus Land'. No other religion has produced more hypocracy and tyrrany than Christianity. If there was one religion I could use as a perfect example of slavery to false gods, it would be this one.

Christian hypocracy began with the Crusades. In 1098 the Pope endorsed a project for the Christian annexation of the Holy Land (currently Israel). The project was the brainchild of Italian merchants. The city states of Genoa, Pisa, Florence, and especially Venice had grown rich and powerful from the Levant trade. They composed Europe's first merchant capital society. These cities were not known for their agriculture, so their wealth came from the exchange of goods. The Holy Land, as the western terminus of the Silk Road, was the source of the goods Italian merchants sought. Like all merchant capitalists, they wanted control over the source of the goods, but did not want to pay for it. They used their capital and influence to convince the Pope that a project for annexation would be beneficial for all (economically of course). Failing that, their proximity to Rome was always a threat. So the Pope issued the call to arms, which was disguised as a holy expedition to expel the Muslim 'infidel' and recaputre the Holy Land for Christendom, as well as to help the Greeks (Byzantines). It was to be an expression of Christian unity and strength.

In reality, 'Christendom' was the backwater of the world in 1098. It was in no way unified. Dozens of tiny states, subdivided into feifdoms run by despotic warrior-lords, were in no position to work together and rivalries amongst themselves infected every pluralist effort. Unity along religious lines was also impossible. Heresies such as Bogomilism, Palagianism, Monophysitism, Iconoclasm, and Catharism plagued the Roman Church. Relations between Rome and Constantinople (capital of Byzantium) had been cold at best since the 1054 Schism. Meanwhile, the 'infidel' was Islam, at the time the most tolerant society in the world and by far one of the most advanced. Some like to see the Crusades, all nine of them lasting until 1291, as an expression of Christian hate and intolerance. I guess the Children's Crusade of 1212 is ample example of how committed Christianity was to the cause of pious annexation. The children were either sold into slavery or left to die as the captains that promised to ferry them saw other opportunities. The Crusades themselves were a big business deal for the Italian city states. They hoped that by capturing the Holy Land, they could control the supply of Silk Road goods and reap a profit by selling them to the very states that sent the troops to conquer it in the first place. These soldiers were far from the holy paladans we read about. They were a mixed bag of peasants, opportunists, profiteers, and zealots.

Examples of the business of being Christian abound. Why, that most hypocritical of holidays just passed! Christmas is supposed to be about the celebration of the birth of their holy being, which may or may not be a part of a trilogy of beings, depending on what's orthodox in your area. Baby Jesus is the centre-peice of manger scenes in front of suburban houses, overshadowed by the bright lights and decorations of the 'Christmas' spirit. Christmas is another example of Christianity selling out, becoming a big business deal. Capitalism has coopted the celebration to encourage buying and selling, thus increasing markets and profits. Capitalism is not to blame however. That's just what capitalism does. It is Christian consent to this (recent) orthodoxy that makes Christianity hypocritial. Few Christians would abandon the flashy lights and family traditions for the somber, reserved mass in a cathedral.

Jesus Land, or Republican America, is probably the most sickening example of the usurpation of Christianity to political-capitalist ends. Under George Bush Jr., the southern and central states have become a hotbed of religious conservatism. This may be the result of economic backwardness, biased media, and Republican doctrine. These states are generally based on agriculture and the primary sector, and are generally isolated from the rest of the world physically and through uninformative media networks like Fox. Like in suburbia, without encountering unorthodox cultures and ideas, the community has stagnated socially and is composed only of white people, who systematically keep down black people. There has been a growing trend towards faith-based community inititives and born-again ideology in these states. This has led to conservatism on things like same-sex marriages, gender roles, and social relations. Funny that the one important teaching of Jesus, love thy fellow man, never comes through in US Christian inititives. Jesus Land is willing to and does use its electoral voice to influence government to its ends. This undermines the fundamental church-state division necessary in the democratic process. This is why, amongst many other reasons, America is no longer a beacon for democracy.

In Canada we have this guy named Stephen Harper. He's the leader of the Canadian Alliance Party. He and Bush would be best buddies, if only Harper could get 5 minutes of airtime on a US channel. Harper is allied with Premier Ralph Klein of Alberta. These guys are conservatives. In a liberal country like Canada, they look like right-wing dictators. Their archaic ideologies have no place in our country. They seek to abrigate the rights of homosexuals, bring the Church back into politics (which was removed in the 19th century), and make life easier for the rich at the expense of the poor. Their idea of a functioning society might have its origins in the archaic laws of Dracon of Athens. Their Church-business elite alliance, like that of Republican America, is the last vestage of the ancien regime. They are a backlash against the unstoppable juggernaut of progress. DON'T VOTE FOR THEM!

That political parties can support religious organizations, or that religious organizations can support political parties, is a testament to the enduring strength of the idea of theocracy. Theocracies exist outside of the Christian sphere, but it is Christianity that has used its influence most on governments through history. How does a church-state alliance grow? Remember those economic extractions I spoke of earlier? The church uses that money to gain special favour with a political group, which returns the favour by giving the church special favour in government. The church uses that favour to legislate against progressive social bills, economic change, public education, and general progress. Organized religions are afraid of changes in the status quo, because they know their position is tenuous. If people stopped believing in false gods, religions would lose their money, their power, and their influence. Thus religious heirarchies have an interest in maintaining the status quo. The Christian Church has had particular success with this in America. Theocracy is tantamount to tyrrany, because theocracy enforces a moral orthodoxy on individuals through community, government, and legislative coersion. Theocracy curtails the free will to exercise individual exploration of the spiritual, or to exercise aetheism.

In Canada, Christians have somehow achieved the label of hypocrits. This is not always true, but the title must have been earned somehow. Perhaps us progressives are simply attempting to enforce our orthodoxy against a dying/resurging doctrine through the process of namecalling. Generally the theory goes that Christians are backwards thinking, unwilling to help their fellow Humans, and are more greedy and self-centred than the rest of us. They are in constant conflict between their established moral code and their actions. Whether this is true or not is irrelevant. Humans make mistakes, and Humans don't like that which is different.

Meet Chad. He's a good friend, a good gamer, and a Christian. He is not a hypocrit, he is not backward, and he is certainly not interested in converting his friends who are mostly avid aetheists. He is capable of independant thought and exercises free will once in a while. If all Christians were like him, perhaps that religion would not have such a bad name. There are infinite degrees of religious interpretation, observance, and action.

Belief can be an exercise in free thought. There is a choice, whether to believe in something or not. However, it should be an individual's choice, not a group decision, and how that belief is observed should be engineered by the individual. In no way should an individual or group force thier beleif or system of observance upon another. That is an act which curtails the free will of an individual. Since Christianity has and does have a habit of violating that principle, among many of its own statutes, it is to be considered hypocritical. This does not make individual believers hypocrites, but their actions may implicate them into that hypocracy. The individual has the choice to defy hypocritical actions and systems of observance if they conflict with the philosophy of liberty.

Part IV: Conclusion

I realize that religion is a very contentious issue. It is, in some cases, the life and mind of some people. Their entire mental framework is organized along religious precepts. In challenging the legitimacy and validity of those precepts, I hope to open minds and raise more questions. I hope to free the individual from religious orthodoxy. How readers choose to interpret and act upon my words is their choice, and refects how strong a Human Being they really are.

I wish you all the very best in the pursuit of your liberties.