Society Only By Name- Part Eight: Theism On Parade

113) There is nothing wrong with being religious, not in the pseudo-society or in the society of neutrality. However, there is also nothing wrong with being an atheist in either, or agnostic, or a deist, or having one's own religion where they are the king, the queen, or the knave. 

114) All groups of believers or non-believers must be accepted, and religion, as a general rule shouldn't be exempt from logical and rational criticism. They also shouldn't be the only ones on parade, displaying their outfits to an unsuspecting audience. Either that, or no-one parades and displays to everyone their subjective beliefs.

115) We must not aim at distinguishing between religions, as this study is not committed to theology. I am also not interested in claiming that one religion is better than the other, because I don't believe in anything any religion has to say. Instead, the general role of religion in the pseudo-society shall be the main topic of interest in this section. Do not think that I will attack Christianity- either the Catholics, the Protestants, the Baptists or the Jesuits- Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism, Taoism, etc. I will not even attack, as such, so much as describe the reality of general faith and its influence.

116) Take this, as a prime example, how some darlings tell others what they want to hear on the grounds of religion. They change their stance on their beliefs to alter their status. At once, darlings are liberally religious in some areas, but can become incredibly conservative and protective of their "traditions" in the throes of piety and worship.

117) And the dregs? Well, one of the reasons one may be ostracized by the darling is because the dregs, as a general rule, tend to be lapsed in whatever religion they once followed. Some may have even been atheists to begin with. If it's one thing the powers that be don't want ushered into being, it is atheism. Anti-atheism appears to be the most acceptable trend.

118) Pop-culturalists are casually religious, even when trends contradict their theological positions. They are more than willing to sin; they are willing to use their religion to justify exploitation, not just of others, but of themselves. They love to sob false tears in the name of their God in order to save their skin from the eternal torture of their Hell, or equivalent. 

119) One may argue that pop-culturalists are non-religious, again, merely appear to be religious or evoking attitudes of conformity or go to a place of worship to save their souls from their free thinking. If only their God, supposing that evidence for any God appears miraculously- again, a topic for another time- can know their true colours, which in all essence is their cunning culture trap, then none of us will know until after the fact.

120) Inclusion and exclusion are the only things that chance worth in any religion- the beliefs themselves remain the same, set on the stones which the manifestos were originally etched out onto, even though sects eventually develop and opposition begins. There in lies the perfect position of religion in our pseudo-society: a paradox, a game- an utter mess. Change is an antidote to any world view with an immunity attached to it. The reason for this immunity changes- "it's tradition!" "You will offend a poor soul!" "Everyone believes it!" "Better to believe than to not believe!" We once believed that the Earth was flat, or that being overcome with master and slave morality was progressive.

121) We have overcome the above mentioned ideas. Maybe "overcome" is forceful; I would say we have seen that these ideas are no absolutes. We are free to dispute these ideas. Why not religion, then? Well, because the pseudo-society is ruled by religion.

122) You cannot escape it. You cannot hide from it. It has overran into all lives, into all minds. It tampers with the soul, by even suggesting that the soul is a concept that has met burden of proof. It has taken over legislation and law. 

123) There are bound to be sensitive readers, skim-reading this and accusing this work's author of blasphemy. Or maybe, to those who hold more dramatic observations, iconoclasm. Maybe a cultural revolution, to those who want to strawman atheism as conforming to the violence of aspiring communism. Really, the suggestion is that we have the choice to believe or not, without elitism, to be neutral, to be moderately religious or not, or if not, recognising one's subjective beliefs.

124) Blasphemy is comedy. Laveyan Satanism is the greatest of comedies, though in error, because it ends up becoming its own religion with its own rules. Blasphemy is synonymous with freedom of speech and with comedy, but is given a different, more passionately hateful term, to strike fear into the heart of anyone who disagrees.

125) "You cannot put God in a test tube!" Well, it appears that Sherlock Holmes has cracked the case as to why the author is an atheist(!) If we cannot observe, test, or assume that a God is falsifiable, then it might well be ascertained that they may be no reason to actually believe in a God, because if one who lacks belief cannot observe a deity, then one with faith has no chance. The stupidity of those who at once claim God is external to our knowledge, whilst referring to God's existence as if it were true knowledge, is too gold an opportunity to pass up on laughing.

126) The pseudo-society is stuck because it clings onto religion, not necessarily because it is still true in the modern world. What doesn't aid this static existence is that religion has a tendency to lack progression even if it wants to change, unless in the hands of some liberal, "hate the sin but love the sinner" satirists. Not even good intentions are complete without moral inconsistencies. 

127) In the society of neutrality, religion would exist as another possibility, not the forced reality it has become among us, in the same realm as politics and literary, musical or cinematic taste. It shall not be forced onto the weak and vulnerable, nor children, nor the unsuspecting. The pseudo-society can only progress if religion progresses, which says more about delusional optimism than feasible hope.