Religion and Me.

I'm pretty non-religious, but I usually stop short of calling myself atheist these days. I’ve started to view secular intellectuals as no more tolerant or worldly than bigoted evangelists. Not least this guy - proselytizing atheists are just as trying as door-to-door bible-thumpers. I think religion (well, some religions, practiced in certain ways, in certain societies) is usually better than the void often left in its place. This is of course premised on my observations that the absence of religion does not always imply a universal acceptance of logic and reason and secular humanism. It often simply means a new (and often less benevolent) form of tyranny.

I think religion is an important counterweight to government control of civil society - otherwise Marxist/Maoist governments would not have been attempting to decimate religion as an institution for so long. Lack of any loyalties outside the state is the lifeblood of despotism. Witness the good things religions bring among, say, most Asians who are weary of their authoritarian governments.

I think American society is so anti-statist and self-reliant primarily because civic bonds are easily formed among the population, and I think the origins of the nation as a haven for religious outcasts and the institutional toleration of free religious practice are a big contributor to this. Civic clubs outside of religious or familial circles arose from religious and familial circles, by and large, and they almost always tend to fail to form significantly in societies which lack a constitutional base of free association (a base which is usually justified by religion in the countries which possess it).

Rational egoists might analyze the "religion" part away from the "religious" rights and practices in question above, and explain that religious freedom was simply the widely accepted banner ad for general recognition of human rights from the America of the 18h century to the China and Burma of today. And that analysis might hold true in the heads of the intellectuals who spark these movements. But to the ordinary people participating in them, I doubt you could get anything beyond religious feeling as an explanation of their true motivation at the moment.

On one hand, I'm fine with all religion, since I think that the majority of mankind needs some sort of social control beyond what a free republic can provide. In order for the rest of us to live free, many people need to remain shackled by their religious dogma. I'm fine with that, and I wouldn't have it any other way. For a slightly more politically correct elucidation on this topic, I recommend Trust by Francis Fukuyama.

On the other hand, I sincerely dislike almost all organized religion because it almost universally exists solely to deal with death. Therefore, I choose to avoid social religions for this reason. I call myself Satanic because my religious beliefs do not accept death as an integral motivator in my life or in the formation of my sense of spiritual being.

Satanism is not a social religion - I think my religious beliefs are far too private and important for that. I especially dislike those who proselytize - I have always thought that religion was something deeply personal, and that shared personal convictions are best held in a tightly knit group of close allies. I don’t see what motivates so many people to join huge, anonymous megachurches, and the 'recruiting' and retention practices of many religions often come much too close to the same sort of social control exercised by the states many religious groups provide a haven against.

But I do believe in a Supreme Being, and He is Me. When one expunges all dogma and hear-say from ones beliefs, all that's left is ones own experience, and mine is that:

The universe (everything that exists) did not exist (for me) before I existed.

The universe will cease to exist if I cease to exist.

No one I know has ever come back from the dead, therefore attempting to speculate what happens to the universe when one is no longer in it is totally pointless. Since all I can experience is Life, I dismiss Death as a motivator. The afterlife, from what I have observed, does not serve my life at this time, and thus my religion is Life. Life is my God.

The best way to pay my respects to this God is to keep it in existence. I expect that this desire to maintain the very existence of ones God is what motivates proselytizing. By recruiting those who will carry on ones belief after one no longer can do so, one is extending the life of that God. Who knows how many Gods have passed into oblivion throughout human history merely due to the fact that all their worshippers died without heirs.

I'm simply cutting out the middle man, I guess. Thus, rather than use religion to justify death or explain it away, I use religion to negate the necessity of death. I wish to avoid death by all means possible, for as long as possible.

To paraphrase LaVey, life is the great indulgence, death the great abstinence. Death is a zero, a nothing. Its only role is to act as that zero which I avoid. My religion is Life - experiencing my universe and enjoying the fleshly pursuits. My altar is my own body.

Don’t get me wrong: I enjoy life, and I don’t think quality and quantity are mutually exclusive ideas - I find the pursuit of ever better health immensely entertaining and rewarding - similar to what working a tough blue-collar job often feels like, even to the most white-collared among us.

Life needn't go hand-in-hand with death - death is not a quality of life - the two just happen to coexist much of the time. I think the philosophy of "accepting death as part of life" is just a cop out for those who have given up the fight. One need not accept the enemy with open arms when he seems overwhelming; one must merely plot his overthrow while he's comfortably embracing you.

Thus, being a Western Anglophone in an Abrahamic culture, the best summary of all of the above comprehensible to my audience, is that I have a religion and it is Satanic. So be it.