User:LogicMaster 777

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

The 3 largest unacknowledged contemporary religions of America[edit]

Unacknowledged not in the sense that the phenomena are unknown to exist but rather that they are generally not commonly recognized as religious in nature:

1. Government religion 2. Corporate religion 3. Cult(s) of celebrity/personality

In my opinion, these 3 religions are the most widespread religions which are ordinarily not perceived as such (ESPECIALLY among their believers).

A BREAKDOWN OF CONTEMPORARY GOVERNMENTAL RELIGION:[edit]

Contemporary Magi[edit]

Some modern day magic men/women

File:Wizardsforfairuseineducationalarticle.jpg File:Magiofthemodernerafairusepublicdomain.jpg

The Theocratic Mob's Street Enforcers[edit]

The theocratic gang called government has many squads of street enforcers. They can often be identified by special costumes or magic jewelry. It is their job to enforce the scriptures of the invisible higher power of state. Coincidentally(or not) they also pull in tons of money for the mob through shakedowns such as traffic tickets, taking cash, and enforcing taxation which is essentially an institutionalized protection racket. These bandits are magically different from other pirates because they have magic jewelry and they are among the chosen ones of the invisible higher power called "the state".

File:FairUseUploadedforuseonaneducationalessaypublicdomain.jpg

Magic Jewelry of Authority[edit]

Wearing this magic jewelry imparts a supernatural force called "authority" to those who wear it. But only if they are among the chosen ones of the "State(s)". In order for the magic jewelry to work properly and to activate the jewelry's magic the chosen one must first partake of a sacred ritual including a religious oath to support and defend the scriptures of the "State(s)".

Anointing the chosen ones[edit]

Here we see some ceremonial magic in which the chosen ones are anointed and ordained with special powers through sacred rituals including a religious oath to signify faithful devotion to the scriptures of the "State(s)". Notice the hands on bibles.

The Sacred Scriptures of the State(s)[edit]

The scripture generally held to be most sacred among adherents of the government religion is the constitution.

Constitution of the United States, page 1.jpg

The Deceptive Doctrine[edit]

Aretheyreallyseparate.jpg One of the most deceptive doctrines of the government belief system is called "Separation of Church and State".

This doctrine is based around the idea that government is a supposedly "secular" institution, completely separate from the realm of religion. This is one of the most deceptive doctrines of the government belief system. The greater ones faith and devotion to the government religion, the less one will perceive it as a religion. Because part of the religious doctrine of the government religion is that the religion is not actually a religion.

The supernatural deity of the Government Religion: On the Corporate Person of the State, or Leviathan[edit]

Pictured is the front Cover of a classic work of medieval statist religious philosophy, Leviathan or The Matter, Forme and Power of a Common Wealth Ecclesiasticall and Civil, by Thomas Hobbes. On the front cover, the Leviathan, that is to say, the Corporate person of the State is pictured as an anthropomorphic titan-like giant, towering over the kingdom, sword-in-hand ready to defend against foreign invaders or punish those who would defy the scriptures of the government religion. Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes.jpg

On the left hand side of the page, we see symbology representing the "civil state": a castle, a crown, a cannon, an arsenal of weapons, and an army being commanded by a general.
On the right hand side of the page, we have symbology representing the "eccesiasticall", or religious aspects of the "Commonwealth": A church, A bishop's hat, Thunder and lightning (threat of supernatural punishment), tridents like Poseidon carried (representing religious idolatry), and a religious-looking ceremonial scene.
Quoted for fair use, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan_%28book%29:
"In it, a giant crowned figure is seen emerging from the landscape, clutching a sword and a crosier, beneath a quote from the Book of Job—"Non est potestas Super Terram quae Comparetur ei. Iob. 41 . 24" ("There is no power on earth to be compared to him. Job 41 . 24")—linking the figure to the monster of that book. (Because of disagreement over where chapters begin, the verse Hobbes quotes is usually given as Job 41:33 in modern Christian translations into English, Job 41:25 in the Masoretic text, Septuagint, and the Luther Bible; it is 41:24 in the Vulgate.) The torso and arms of the figure are composed of over three hundred persons, in the style of Giuseppe Arcimboldo; all are facing inwards with just the giant's head having visible features. (A manuscript of Leviathan created for Charles II in 1651 has notable differences – a different main head but significantly the body is also composed of many faces, all looking outwards from the body and with a range of expressions.)
The lower portion is a triptych, framed in a wooden border. The centre form contains the title on an ornate curtain. The two sides reflect the sword and crosier of the main figure – earthly power on the left and the powers of the church on the right. Each side element reflects the equivalent power – castle to church, crown to mitre, cannon to excommunication, weapons to logic, and the battlefield to the religious courts. The giant holds the symbols of both sides, reflecting the union of secular and spiritual in the sovereign, but the construction of the torso also makes the figure the state."
Who is this crowned titanic being? This "Leviathan", this towering giant? Let's have a look at what Hobbes has to say (quoted for fair use) in Chapter XVII:
"The only way to erect such a common power, as may be able to defend them from the invasion of foreigners, and the injuries of one another, and thereby to secure them in such sort as that by their own industry and by the fruits of the earth they may nourish themselves and live contentedly, is to confer all their power and strength upon one man, or upon one assembly of men, that may reduce all their wills, by plurality of voices, unto one will: which is as much as to say, to appoint one man, or assembly of men, to bear their person; and every one to own and acknowledge himself to be author of whatsoever he that so beareth their person shall act, or cause to be acted, in those things which concern the common peace and safety; and therein to submit their wills, every one to his will, and their judgements to his judgement. This is more than consent, or concord; it is a real unity of them all in one and the same person, made by covenant of every man with every man, in such manner as if every man should say to every man: I authorise and give up my right of governing myself to this man, or to this assembly of men, on this condition; that thou give up, thy right to him, and authorise all his actions in like manner. This done, the multitude so united in one person is called a COMMONWEALTH; in Latin, CIVITAS. This is the generation of that great LEVIATHAN, or rather, to speak more reverently, of that mortal god to which we owe, under the immortal God, our peace and defence. For by this authority, given him by every particular man in the Commonwealth, he hath the use of so much power and strength conferred on him that, by terror thereof, he is enabled to form the wills of them all, to peace at home, and mutual aid against their enemies abroad. And in him consisteth the essence of the Commonwealth; which, to define it, is: one person, of whose acts a great multitude, by mutual covenants one with another, have made themselves every one the author, to the end he may use the strength and means of them all as he shall think expedient for their peace and common defence.
And he that carryeth this person is called sovereign, and said to have sovereign power; and every one besides, his subject."

Here Hobbes uses an appeal to consequence with the use of reification to imagine into existence via "the secret"-style magical thinking his conceptualization of the "Commonwealth", the Corporate Person (the multitude so united in one "person"). And the supernatural force of "sovereign power". Notice Hobbes uses "men" to refer to actual flesh and blood human men yet refers to this "being" as "person" to differentiate that he is speaking of an abstraction rather than a flesh and blood "man" when talking about the "Leviathan". Yes the government religion really is founded upon these magically conjured abstractions and their reification - that is to say the make belief that these abstractions are literally "real".

From the Wizard Priests themselves[edit]

"Cite as: 567 U. S. ____ (2012) 1
Opinion of SCALIA, J.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 11–182
ARIZONA, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. UNITED STATES
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
[June 25, 2012]
JUSTICE SCALIA, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
The United States is an indivisible “Union of sovereign States.”"
"Today’s opinion... ...deprives States of what most would con- sider the defining characteristic of sovereignty: the power to exclude from the sovereign’s territory people who have no right to be there."
Of course, this is circular reasoning since whether people have a right to be there is supposedly a function of "sovereign power" to decide. But that criticism of Scalia's "logic"(reification fallacy notwithstanding) aside, What is this "sovereign" Scalia refers to? It is the Leviathan-type entity of Arizona or the "corporate person" called "State of Arizona" in this case. The corporate person or "legal person", the Commonwealth of Arizona. An abstraction of the mind, yet this imaginary "person" of "Arizona" is anthromorphized by scalia, that is to say "it" is given characteristics of an actual person: "It" can, or should be able to decide who should or shouldn't be in the geographic area of Arizona and then kick those whom "it" deems unworthy out of the territory. Bear in mind "it" is an abstraction. Yet Scalia describes it as an anthromorphized "entity" with its own motivations and personality. This statist reification forms the supernatural basis of Government Religion. This thought process of imagining the "Entity" of "Arizona" and then Reifiying it as "real" and giving it its own "Personhood", "Personality", and motivations and supernatural "powers". Remember, we're still talking about something which only exists in the mind.
Scalia goes on to say:
"As a sovereign, Arizona has the inherent power to exclude persons from its territory, subject only to those limitations expressed in the Constitution or constitutionally imposed by Congress. That power to exclude has long been recognized as inherent in sovereignty."
So this imaginary person can own land and kick people off its land. Except when Congress says no. According to the theoretical musings of the Wizard Priest Scalia. His opinion was actually as "dissenting opinion". In other words, the majority of the "Supreme" "judges" actually voted contrary to him on the matter they were "hearing". I just cite his language to show how the scriptural teachings of the contemporary wizard priest are quite in line with the medieval magical theories of Hobbes. Scalia is perhaps the most verbose of those currently empaneled on the "Supreme Court"(A special club for elite wizard-priest lawyers that makes big decisions for the Federal Government by interpreting scripture to formulate new scripture and dogma which they call "case law" and by bossing people around, mostly by written orders which they formulate by a quasi-democratic process meant to establish consensus among themselves).
But let's examine some other writings from others among the elites of the legal field.

More analysis from Arizona v United States, where one Leviathan-type imaginary abstract entity sues another (Imagine Santa suing the tooth fairy. Would you accept such thing as rational? Why or why not? What about if a lawyer claiming to "represent" "Thor" sued "Loki" as a defendant? Could such a thing happen in the legal system? Why or why not? In what way is the magical imaginary entity called "Arizona" "fighting" in court with the conjured up abstraction of the "United States" different from the battle between Perseus and Medusa in terms of its "realness"? Is one "realer" than the other? If so, why? Because the magic man in the wizard costume said so, simply by virtue of his shamanic power as one of the chosen ones?)[edit]

From the Majority opinion(page 3 of the "court's" opinion): "It is fundamental that foreign countries concerned about the status, safety, and security of their nationals in the United States must be able to confer and communicate on this subject with one national sovereign, not the 50 separate States."

Worshiping and praying to the Leviathan, the god of statism[edit]

Here are some young children being coercively indoctrinated into the government religion through compulsory ritualistic idol worship. Students pledging allegiance to the American flag with the Bellamy salute.jpg

On the magic men and women of State[edit]

The judge is a magic man. A shaman. A magi. A modern day wizard-priest of a particular religion, that is to say the Government Religion. What he says magically becomes true through a supernatural invisible force called "force of law". He does a magic ritual where he bangs the symbolic hammer of justice(see photo 2), writes his "findings", opinions, and "orders" into the sacred scrolls of Government and by virtue of the ceremonial magic and shamanic power involved, the writings are then "law" (scripture).

What is the court? Why the pomp, the costumes, the ceremonies, the oaths, the heavy symbolism? The court is a type of theater for a type of magic show performance. The magic show is to deceive the audience. The guy on the bench higher than everyone else is no ordinary average every day joe. He represents something beyond us all individually. He represents the invisible higher power of "state". He or she is the chosen one. He or she wears a special wizard/priest costume(see picture 4). Why? What is the costume meant to symbolize? Is there a particular message being sent by the fancy costume?

What are the costumes of the Wizard characters in Harry Potter (see picture 1,3,6) meant to symbolize? Why are the costumes identical or near-identical(see pictures 1-6)? Robes, and in particular black robes have long been associated as symbolic of a man's/woman's status as a magical wizard or priest.

The robes of Jesuit Priests, Catholic bishops and priests, and the ceremonial robes of other wizard-priests like Aleister Crowley also have a strong resemblance to the robes worn by the Magi of the religious cult called the "bar", a special society for the most learned in the sacred scriptures of state. To be admitted into this selective closed society one must be anointed through a ceremony including a religious oath to faithfully uphold and defend the scriptures of State(s) or the "United States". When one is admitted into this scriptural society, this cult, one is then called "Lawyer". The most powerful-ranking among the lawyer cult are those of the wizard-priest class called "judge(s)". These judges are presumed to have unique ability, wisdom, and "authority" in their interpretation of the sacred scriptures of the government religion.

On the two Fallacious appeals to consequences used to rationalize the reification[edit]

1. The Hobbes-esque appeal to consequence 2. The "State Ad Baculum" or "statist ad baculum"

1. The "State" is "real" because believing it is real has good consequences. Bad guys can go to jail. Invaders can be chased away and the abstraction of "the state" provides an organizational rallying point around which endeavor toward those ends can be organized so therefore the abstraction is "real". This is basically the type of argument Hobbes makes as justification of why his imaginary Leviathan should be accepted as "real".

2. The "State is real" because [insert violence/punishment]. My dad can beat up your dad, might is right, Our glory on the battlefield is the proof our cause is [Just/anointed/good/prophesied/take your pick] Once you accept this "logic" you can try to prove any faith based abstraction or conclusion by using force/punishment, etc however you want to put it. Why bother to do clinical trials? We can prove pills work by fighting.

WARNING ARMCHAIR PSYCHOANALYSIS OF STATIST PSYCHOLOGICAL MOTIVATORS[edit]

This type of "logic" is inculcated through the cultural reinforcers of spanking and coercive education. Where "punishment" + Authoritarian "Because I said so" become associated with "truthiness" in the mind by means of stimulus response-based learning mechanisms.
The impressionable child is trying to understand the world. The adults tell the child to worship a flag. All the "good kids" are doing it. And it's not like the child can run away since truancy is "bad" and [insert punishment]. So the kid has to worship the flag and comes to associate this feeling of being one of the "good" "citizens" with the sense of "togetherness" felt in the classroom which provides comfort against the threat of being alone in a scary confusing world. The child experiences a sort of bonding in the ritual although at first they don't really understand the words "allegiance" and "republic". Associative learning mechanisms cause this to become a learned association further reinforced through repetition. They are (not very)subtly coerced into this idol worship with its prayer to a higher power in the form of a religious oath to the abstract "person", the Leviathan of the "United States", the supreme deity of the government faith, represented in the form of an idol with its pentagram symbols and colorful stripes. It is a powerful form of coercive cult indoctrination (Conspiracy theory ahead, read at own risk) used specifically to target the child at the age when they are at their most impressionable.

On the distinction between my use of anthromorphized and anthromorphic[edit]

When I use the term anthromorphic, I mean to describe something that either IS or IS IMAGINED to be an actual human or human-like being. When I say anthromorphized whithout the clarifier of "anthromorphic" with it then I mean to imagine an abstraction or a non-human or inanimate object as having human-like characteristics: "The forest speaks to me." "The State decided." "My car is acting like an asshole." etc. This doesn't necessarily imply imagining or believing in an abstraction as an actual "man" or "woman"(although it can, by which I mean to distinguish with the qualifier of "anthromorphic" to make such a distinction). On the cover of Hobbes book he depicts "the state" as an anthromorphic(although very giant looking) "man"-like being. Scalias anthromorphizing doesn't really go so far as to equivocate "the state" with an actual flesh and blood "man". Although by describing the imaginary supernatural "entity" acting directly on the physical universe Scalia is reifying the abstraction based on magical thinking.

All images Public Domain or Fair Use - do not vandalize[edit]

Any images appearing in LM777's article, working title: A breakdown of the contemporary Government Religion cited and uploaded from the public domain and/or for fair use in the educational article. If you do not understand the article whether it be because of willful ignorance, lack of merit of the article, or because it is an unfinished work or for any other reason, that is not a reason to vandalize the page. If you do not understand public use doctrine do not use your made up version of what you think it might be and use your made up armchair lawyer version as a rationalization for vandalizing my work. To make it simple for any would be politio-religious zealot vandals of a statist bent, or would be armchair lawyers who don't want to bother looking up fair use doctrine but would prefer to use their own made up version, I will clarify what is or is not fair use and what is or is not infringement, under fair use doctrine.

Fair use doctrine[edit]

Under the religious doctrine of fair use what constitutes fair use is using a copyright protected("copyright protected" refers to an imaginary scripture-based supernatural force) image for purposes of an educational work which is of a non-commercial(not a business venture) nature. I am not selling advertising in my article and I am not selling the article itself. If anyone accuses me of plagiarism or infringement they better have some evidence to support it. Merely calling my article "random" with no evidence-based reasoned support to your argument does not prove infringement. Calling me a moron to add insult to the injury of vandalizing my work and libel of falsely accusing me of infringement is not a reasoned argument to show "randomness" or "infringement".

FAIR USE ≠ WHAT YOU PERSONALLY APPROVE
INFRINGEMENT ≠ WHAT YOU PERSONALLY DISAPPROVE
FAIR USE = Use in a non-commercial educational work.

Statists, I have made it as simple as I can above. Zoo-Guard your unfounded(unsupported by reasoned evidence) statist anti-free speech anti-science censorship attacks have no rational basis. Your religion is being exposed for what it is whether you like it or not despite your emotional statist meltdown and subsequent temper tantrum.

The 3 reactions[edit]

When confronted on the rational basis for their beliefs, or rather, the lack thereof, the statist will typically behave in one of the following manner(when their faith-based beliefs have no rational basis):

1. Run away/Deny/Denialism.
Throws up his hands and refuses to discuss. "Well you believe what you believe so no matter how much I try to convince you you will not accept my evidence" is used as a rationalization for lack of evidence. "What do you mean statist violence doesn't prove the statist belief system? No proof would satisfy you then." Plenty of religious institutions have used "enforcement" as part of the "proof" of the validity of the faith: Mohammad, Joan of Arc, Constantine, I could go on here. All these politio-religious "leaders" have used the enforcement of the religious precepts or scriptures as "evidence" for the "legitimacy" of their politio-religious institutions. Using this type of "evidence" doesn't particularly distinguish your scriptural claims as different and is not "evidence" debunking my theory that the institution is religious.
Or you will see another variant of denialism in the form of gaslighting. "What do you mean the government uses threats to make you pay taxes? Really? Since when does that happen? You pay voluntarily because you want to pay." "The government is violent? How does the government killing children prove a pattern of violence? Huh? Since when does the government kill children anyway? That never happened."
"The holocaust happened? Since when?" etc.
Runs away: "I can't talk to you. You are too weird to talk to."
2. Says something blatantly contradictory.
Taxes are voluntary. The state is an abstraction but believing it is "real" is not reification.
Puting a gun to someone's head and ordering them to do something isn't "forcing them", a coerced decision is a "free will" decision.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDK7QEzHtXA
Violence is peace. Arbitrary assertions are "The truth" just because some guy said so, but it's not blind faith.
The government gets its legitimate power from the consent of the governed. You don't just get to opt-out.
Obama has majority support. The proof? 26% of Americans voted for him. Etc.
3. AGGRESSION
The statist acts like someone who has been caught in a lie will often do by "blowing up" at the confronting party. If you ask for facts to prove their assertions they will try to "prove" them with verbal aggression such as name calling or threats. Or they might try to use physical violence or other types of aggression such as slander/libel or vandalism.You have questioned their "authority" and now you must be punished for it, etc.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObebwaznpLE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjbPZAMked0
Some typical reactions include straw manning which is basically a combination of all 3 tactics. A type of verbal aggression based on fallacious/false, self-contradictory reasoning, and a type of denialism in that it refuses to acknowledge the actual point of the other side, but rather uses a false version. Aggressive in that it is essentially an attempt to perpetrate a form of intellectual fraud.