There are some who argue that Hitler was not only influenced by Bellamy’s salute but also by his racist ideals:
“There are races, more or less akin to our own, whom we may admit freely, and get nothing but advantage from the infusion of their wholesome blood. But there are other races which we cannot assimilate without a lowering of our racial standard, which should be as sacred to us as the sanctity of our homes.”
LOL … On a more serious note, these pledges of allegiance are all manifestations of the new henotheism/polytheism. Nationalism is nothing but paganism in a new form.
@Nationalism is nothing but paganism in a new form.
Absolutely, because nationalism is really a form of self-worship: the worship of a creature in lieu of the worship of the Creator. Satan clearly understood at some point that humanity would not continue to worship statues, planets or stars, thus he came up with yet another idol, the human himself as the human is as much a created being as a statue or the planets or stars; that makes self-worship by humans (of whatever persuasion, not only nationalist, but also “enlightened” secularists, proponents of other human-created “isms”) simply another form of paganism, albeit a more egocentric and hedonistic one (-: no need to sacrifice food to the gods, you can chow it down yourself :-)
Since man is the creator of both nationalism and the religious conception of “God,” worship of the creator is really worship of man. Religion is merely a projection of the self into a personification of the deity, which then takes on the characteristics of the self. God is not only who we want him to be, he is us, which is why no two theologians can agree on the nature of God. Each has his own unique projection based on the self which has nothing to do with any reality God may or may not have. However much they may begin from the same religious template, no two impressions of God are ever completely alike, as no two individuals are alike.
The peculiarity of both religion and nationalism is that they allow the glorification of the self through identity with a greater power (God, the nation) while demanding the abnegation of the self through blind obedience to religious and secular authorities and the cult of self-sacrifice and self-denial. Both religion and nationalism are systems of social control designed to subvert the individual to the power and control of elites, so it is not an accident that the highest virtue in either system is blind obedience, and the highest calling is to sacrifice your life in service to the interests of those elites (martyrdom, dying for your country). The individual gives up the fulfillment of most of his physical needs and his liberty in exchange for ego-gratification and the security of tribal identity and social acceptance in the religious or national group.
The poor and the downtrodden are encouraged to view their suffering and deprivation as “virtues” and not as the curse they are. Any attempt to emulate the powerful in their enjoyment of life’s pleasures is harshly condemned as “hedonism,” “bourgeois decadence” or “sin” by puritanical commissars/priests who observe no such restrictions on their own human urges. Both capitalism and religion insist that the elite earned their exalted position by dint of personal virtue or the favor of God whether in this life or the last. The only way for the poor to escape this system is by total submission to it which will be rewarded in Heaven or a return trip to Earth as a brahimin.
For most of human existence religion and the state were intertwined, but the alleged separation that exists in modern times is largely cosmetic, as both still work together to enforce the will of elites. The government doesn’t tell the church what to do, and the church doesn’t tell the government what to do, but together, they tell you what to do.
===================== Since man is the creator of both nationalism and the religious conception of “God,” worship of the creator is really worship of man. ======================
That statement exemplifies the fallacy of confusing the representation of a thing with the thing itself. The rest of the argument uses the typical post-Enlightenment caricature of religion based on certain peculiarities of West European history. Then that straw man is projected to subsume religion as a whole.
If you can, find the short book Religion vs Religion by Ali Shariati, who has an interesting analysis of the issues. We may discover that authentic “religion” is about liberation, socio-politico-economic as well as spiritual. We may also find that distinguishing the concept of God from God is critical to avoiding bthe self-worship you so rightly criticize.
Let’s all expand our horizons and break out of our “dogmatic slumbers” to use Kant’s expression.
If there’s a caricature here, it’s the habitual invocation of pedantic shibboleths like “post-Enlightenment” that mean absolutely nothing to the majority of people except the religionists and right-wingers who beat these terms to death in an effort to make a point that isn’t there.
You don’t need to be a secular humanist “post-Enlightenment” poster child to see religion for what it is. All you need to do is listen to any religion’s criticisms of its competitors in the social control business to get a good idea of what religion is all about. There is little so bad I can say about the other guy’s religion I can’t find someone in your religion to agree with it. Once again I am compelled to ask for an example of a religious sect that doesn’t fall into the category of “social control” and once again, I know I won’t get a straight answer. I’ll be directed to a book somewhere because the answer is apparently too esoteric for mere mortals to comprehend.
There is no fallacy of representation here, at least not on my part, because “representation of God” is all religion offers. As I pointed out, no two theologians even within the same sect can agree on the nature of God or what he wants, as the opinion of what God is is largely a projection of the self. Conceptions of God differ radically across religions. The simple fact is you can’t all be right so some of you, if not all of you, are wrong. It is easier to obtain consensus on the nature of squirrels than the nature of God because squirrels are a known entity. God is not.
There is nothing peculiar about religion in the West. One of the things that I have always found striking is the enormous similarities in the way religions evolve and function within radically different and isolated societies. Compare feudal Japan to feudal Europe, two wildly different cultures with little contact with each other, but where religion evolved along a similar path and played a similar role within society. Buddhists formed fanatical military orders similar to the crusaders in the West, fought religious wars, persecuted heretics, and struggled with secular authorities for power and control. They interfered in the everyday lives of ordinary people and enforced behavioral restraints, and worked to condition the peasantry into acceptance of their parsimonious existence by exalting it as a virtue, just as in the West. The cult of self-denial is taken to extremes within Buddhism where the self is regarded as an illusion, while in the West, the literal apotheosis of self-denial is the sacrifice of Jesus who died for no real logical reason. The “sacrificed savior” is a common motif in dozens of religions because self-sacrifice for the benefit of elites is the model religious adherents have been conditioned to follow and what could be better to encourage this than a divine role model to follow.
Let’s not forget the salute that used to accompany the pledge:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellamy_salute
There are some who argue that Hitler was not only influenced by Bellamy’s salute but also by his racist ideals:
“There are races, more or less akin to our own, whom we may admit freely, and get nothing but advantage from the infusion of their wholesome blood. But there are other races which we cannot assimilate without a lowering of our racial standard, which should be as sacred to us as the sanctity of our homes.”
http://www.oldtimeislands.org/pledge/pdgech4.htm
LOL … On a more serious note, these pledges of allegiance are all manifestations of the new henotheism/polytheism. Nationalism is nothing but paganism in a new form.
Peace
@Nationalism is nothing but paganism in a new form.
Absolutely, because nationalism is really a form of self-worship: the worship of a creature in lieu of the worship of the Creator. Satan clearly understood at some point that humanity would not continue to worship statues, planets or stars, thus he came up with yet another idol, the human himself as the human is as much a created being as a statue or the planets or stars; that makes self-worship by humans (of whatever persuasion, not only nationalist, but also “enlightened” secularists, proponents of other human-created “isms”) simply another form of paganism, albeit a more egocentric and hedonistic one (-: no need to sacrifice food to the gods, you can chow it down yourself :-)
Its really obvious, isn’t it?
Cheers!
Since man is the creator of both nationalism and the religious conception of “God,” worship of the creator is really worship of man. Religion is merely a projection of the self into a personification of the deity, which then takes on the characteristics of the self. God is not only who we want him to be, he is us, which is why no two theologians can agree on the nature of God. Each has his own unique projection based on the self which has nothing to do with any reality God may or may not have. However much they may begin from the same religious template, no two impressions of God are ever completely alike, as no two individuals are alike.
The peculiarity of both religion and nationalism is that they allow the glorification of the self through identity with a greater power (God, the nation) while demanding the abnegation of the self through blind obedience to religious and secular authorities and the cult of self-sacrifice and self-denial. Both religion and nationalism are systems of social control designed to subvert the individual to the power and control of elites, so it is not an accident that the highest virtue in either system is blind obedience, and the highest calling is to sacrifice your life in service to the interests of those elites (martyrdom, dying for your country). The individual gives up the fulfillment of most of his physical needs and his liberty in exchange for ego-gratification and the security of tribal identity and social acceptance in the religious or national group.
The poor and the downtrodden are encouraged to view their suffering and deprivation as “virtues” and not as the curse they are. Any attempt to emulate the powerful in their enjoyment of life’s pleasures is harshly condemned as “hedonism,” “bourgeois decadence” or “sin” by puritanical commissars/priests who observe no such restrictions on their own human urges. Both capitalism and religion insist that the elite earned their exalted position by dint of personal virtue or the favor of God whether in this life or the last. The only way for the poor to escape this system is by total submission to it which will be rewarded in Heaven or a return trip to Earth as a brahimin.
For most of human existence religion and the state were intertwined, but the alleged separation that exists in modern times is largely cosmetic, as both still work together to enforce the will of elites. The government doesn’t tell the church what to do, and the church doesn’t tell the government what to do, but together, they tell you what to do.
=====================
Since man is the creator of both nationalism and the religious conception of “God,” worship of the creator is really worship of man.
======================
That statement exemplifies the fallacy of confusing the representation of a thing with the thing itself. The rest of the argument uses the typical post-Enlightenment caricature of religion based on certain peculiarities of West European history. Then that straw man is projected to subsume religion as a whole.
If you can, find the short book Religion vs Religion by Ali Shariati, who has an interesting analysis of the issues. We may discover that authentic “religion” is about liberation, socio-politico-economic as well as spiritual. We may also find that distinguishing the concept of God from God is critical to avoiding bthe self-worship you so rightly criticize.
Let’s all expand our horizons and break out of our “dogmatic slumbers” to use Kant’s expression.
Peace
If there’s a caricature here, it’s the habitual invocation of pedantic shibboleths like “post-Enlightenment” that mean absolutely nothing to the majority of people except the religionists and right-wingers who beat these terms to death in an effort to make a point that isn’t there.
You don’t need to be a secular humanist “post-Enlightenment” poster child to see religion for what it is. All you need to do is listen to any religion’s criticisms of its competitors in the social control business to get a good idea of what religion is all about. There is little so bad I can say about the other guy’s religion I can’t find someone in your religion to agree with it. Once again I am compelled to ask for an example of a religious sect that doesn’t fall into the category of “social control” and once again, I know I won’t get a straight answer. I’ll be directed to a book somewhere because the answer is apparently too esoteric for mere mortals to comprehend.
There is no fallacy of representation here, at least not on my part, because “representation of God” is all religion offers. As I pointed out, no two theologians even within the same sect can agree on the nature of God or what he wants, as the opinion of what God is is largely a projection of the self. Conceptions of God differ radically across religions. The simple fact is you can’t all be right so some of you, if not all of you, are wrong. It is easier to obtain consensus on the nature of squirrels than the nature of God because squirrels are a known entity. God is not.
There is nothing peculiar about religion in the West. One of the things that I have always found striking is the enormous similarities in the way religions evolve and function within radically different and isolated societies. Compare feudal Japan to feudal Europe, two wildly different cultures with little contact with each other, but where religion evolved along a similar path and played a similar role within society. Buddhists formed fanatical military orders similar to the crusaders in the West, fought religious wars, persecuted heretics, and struggled with secular authorities for power and control. They interfered in the everyday lives of ordinary people and enforced behavioral restraints, and worked to condition the peasantry into acceptance of their parsimonious existence by exalting it as a virtue, just as in the West. The cult of self-denial is taken to extremes within Buddhism where the self is regarded as an illusion, while in the West, the literal apotheosis of self-denial is the sacrifice of Jesus who died for no real logical reason. The “sacrificed savior” is a common motif in dozens of religions because self-sacrifice for the benefit of elites is the model religious adherents have been conditioned to follow and what could be better to encourage this than a divine role model to follow.