Less than human


How state sponsored monotheism enslaves your mind
As a rule of thumb, I generally do not speak against a specific religion or faith. I might speak against individual actions or the actions of a group, but I firmly believe that matters of faith are between you and the Divine. My credo is that humans are free to choose. That also means humans are free to walk away.

The way I see it, if it came to a disagreement and I can't convince you without resorting to force, that's my failure.

Or course, my parity rule means that if you can't do it without force, that's YOUR failure and I am obligated to stop you. My particular ruleset means that usually you have to step over the line first, but once you do, I've no restraints on my behavior except what it takes to get the job done.

And I am extremely good. Good enough that I can almost make anyone look like a fool. Which usually costs much more than a direct attack. Counting coup is amazingly effective when it comes to defusing opponents.

It's none of my business what you believe as long as you play nice and don't try to impose that belief on anyone else.

KYFHO now and forever.

It shocks some people because they don't understand my restraint. They look on it as weakness. because they've learned that following the rules against your own appetites is weakness. Rules are for sheep according to them. When they meet someone who can play their own game nastier than they can, they've no experience. Their own ruleset "guarantees" success, they've never had to learn how to out argue. "Power over" is weak when there is no skill to back it up.

That is why I believe in individual liberty. Hang on, I want to make sure you pay attention to that phrase.

Individual Liberty.

That is one of the most important phrases that you have ever read and that you have ever heard. It means that you and you alone are responsible for your freedom. It means that you have to fight for it, maybe every day of your life.

It means you can't trust an institution to protect your freedom unless you are there watching the institution. You know the document, but I added the emphasis.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security…

And that leads us to monotheism. Or more precisely, why kings and empires favored monotheism. Via The Wild Hunt Blog comes a link to From Polytheism to Monotheism: A Quest For Power? at The Moderate Voice.

Wright argues that consolidation of the power spread across many gods was a form of social cement. It was also a means of nullifying opposition power (by removing organized opposition). In addition, this consolidation elevated the position of high priests in both social and political structures.

As Bernard Lewis, “a go-to guy during the Bush administration,” reminds us, the notion of a separate church and state “was not only non-existent but would have been meaningless” during the first millennium.

Monotheism simplifies things for the ruler (be that priest or king). But it removes choice for the ruled. What makes a rational person voluntarily accept that trade-off? The early history suggests that the common man rejected the change, the imposition of a new order (one god). However, as kings and priests aligned their interests and shared the power that resulted, the social norm — often imposed at the point of a spear — became one god. It became the norm and polytheism (or atheism) the social aberration.

I've a simpler way to put it, one that reflects modern economic theory. State supported monotheism removes choice.

If people aren't free to find their own path to the Divine, they've become something less than human. They can be told what is best for them. They won't question the powers of the Benevolent State. They won't demand their rights.

They've never had to fight for freedom of thought.

That's why I keep vigil you know.

I don't want to convert you to my way.

I want you to question me. I want you to challenge my thoughts. I want your criticism of those who claim to speak for the Divine.

That is YOUR liberty. And as long as it's done without force, it makes MY liberty stronger.

I don't care what you believe. But if you honor my choice I'll honor yours.

— NeoWayland

Posted: Wed - August 25, 2010 at 01:59 PM  Tag


 ◊  ◊   ◊  ◊ 

Random selections from NeoWayland's library


Pagan Vigil "Because LIBERTY demands more than just black or white"
© 2005 - 2010 All Rights Reserved