The nation’s Roman Catholic bishops vowed Tuesday to forcefully confront the Obama administration over its support for abortion rights, saying the church and religious freedom could be under attack in the new presidential administration.

Say that again? “Religious freedom”?

Yes, it’s that distortion again. Do these people even know what “freedom” means? When you’re deciding on something that affects mainly others, it’s not “freedom”, it’s power. The power over others, to dictate on what they can and cannot do.

“Religious freedom” is being able to have the religion you want – even if it’s “none”. It’s being able to act according to those beliefs, as long as it doesn’t infringe the rights of others. It’s not being persecuted (as in “jailed” or “fed to large felines”) for your beliefs. That’s it.

“Religious freedom” has nothing to do with being able to oppress others, force your beliefs on them, or dictate their actions by turning your religious commandments into the law of your country, affecting everyone – even those who don’t share your beliefs. All of those are a matter of power – of having power over other people.

If you don’t have that power – even if, historically, you are used to having it it – your “freedom” is never in question. You can still do what you want. But so can others… and that’s what you can’t accept, isn’t it?

I do believe that legalizing gay marriage would directly affect religious freedoms–all in the guise of “equal rights”.

Am I a bigot for supporting what I feel to be morally right?

I do believe that passing this amendment protects religious freedom.

However, that person, though possibly unaware of the fact, has a problem with definitions. Because it’s not about (his) freedom at all, but about (his) power.

I think it was Richard Stallman who once wrote that the difference between a freedom and a power is that the former is being able to decide something which affects mostly yourself, and a power is to be able to decide something that affects mainly others. Now, when you, a religious heterosexual, can (and do) decide what others (gays) can and cannot do, which is the case? It takes an especially convulted and twisted mind — not to mention incredibly selfish and egocentric — to claim that whether gays can marry or not affects you more than it does them¹. To decide that they can’t marry is not a question of your freedom, but of you having power over their freedoms.

Also, losing a power you once had does not constitute a “loss of your freedom”, because none of the latter was affected. Christians love to claim that their “religious freedom” is being attacked, but no such thing has ever happened (unless, possibly, in Muslim theocracies), because their freedoms are unaffected; what they are losing is the power they’re used to having — and which they always had, through history, unjustly, and often through physical force.

1. e.g. “not oppressing them hurts my feelings, so whether to oppress them or not is all about me.”

Hitler did attempt eugenic breeding of humans, and this is sometimes misrepresented as an attempt to apply Darwinian principles to humans. But this interpretation gets it historically backwards, as PZ Myers has pointed out. Darwin’s great achievement was to look at the familiar practice of domestic livestock breeding by artificial selection, and realize that the same principle might apply in NATURE, thereby explaining the evolution of the whole of life: “natural selection”, the “survival of the fittest”. Hitler didn’t apply NATURAL selection to humans. He was probably even more ignorant of natural selection than Ben Stein evidently is. Hitler tried to apply ARTIFICIAL selection to humans, and there is nothing specifically Darwinian about artificial selection. It has been familiar to farmers, gardeners, horse trainers, dog breeders, pigeon fanciers and many others for centuries, even millennia. Everybody knew about artificial selection, and Hitler was no exception. What was unique about Darwin was his idea of NATURAL selection; and Hitler’s eugenic policies had nothing to do with natural selection.

This, in retrospect, is obvious, but I hadn’t seen it explained so succinctly and clearly before. Eugenics has nothing to do with Darwinian evolution! Animal (and even plant) breeders have known about selective breeding for millennia (indeed, I think it’s even mentioned in the Christian Bible), ages before Darwin or the concept of the evolution of species. Anyone who breeds dogs, horses, birds, etc. knows perfectly well that you can cross specimens with particular characteristics to achieve desired results (say, a new hair or plumage color, or a bigger or smaller animal, or one with other specific characteristics). This can be seen as artificial selection.

Darwin’s new idea was: what if something like this also happens in nature, without intervention? And what if that is how the species in the world today have came to be? In other words: evolution, by natural selection.

Eugenics (the attempt to “perfect” the human race according to one’s beliefs or preferences) has nothing to do with natural selection. It’s simply an attempt to apply the ages old selective breeding of animals to humans.

Of course, I’m not even considering blaming animal breeders from thousands of years ago for the Holocaust. That would simply be ridiculous. But blaming something completely unrelated (Darwinian evolution) for it is even more ridiculous. Eugenics is a disgusting distortion of selective breeding (which is itself blameless for eugenics); it’s completely unrelated to evolution / natural selection.

And, when you should know better than to say such an absurdity (as some filmmakers do), it’s also a dangerous, evil lie.

Which of the following responses by the liberal do you think more likely?

1. “Wait, I’m patriotic too!” <rushes to buy a lapel pin>
2. “A party that presided over a war in which our troops did not get the body armor they needed, or were sending troops over who were untrained because of poor planning, or are not fulfilling the veterans’ benefits that these troops need when they come home, or are undermining our Constitution with warrantless wiretaps that are unnecessary? That is a debate I am very happy to have. We’ll see what the American people think is the true definition of patriotism.”

The first answer is, of course, the more likely one. It’s what Democrats have been doing since 2001. Every time Dems criticized the Bush administration, the latter knew it could stop the former in their tracks and make them scurry back to their holes simply by questioning their “patriotism”. How many times have you heard “Why do you hate America?”… and how many times did you see such a dishonest, disgusting question (much like “when did you stop beating your wife?”) actually work?

This is why Obama’s reply (which number 2, above, is) is so impressive. Not because it was genius, or because it took a lot of guts, but simply because it was virtually unprecedented in this decade. When have Democrats last stood up to Republican bullies? I don’t even remember. When did a Democrat last refuse to accept such warped definitions? What is “patriotism”, anyway: defending the Constitution and the American ideals… or wearing a flag and calling those who don’t “unpatriotic” and “un-American”?

Republicans — especially the neocon thugs — love to redefine the meanings of words to their advantage, and, sadly, Democrats tend to fall for it. Oppose the Patriot Act? You’re unpatriotic — never mind that it’s them who’re violating the Constitution of the United States. Oppose the so-called “War on Terror”? You’re a terrorist-supporter. Disagree with the Iraq war? You hate the military and America. Oppose taking away liberties in the name of “freedom”? You hate freedom.

And nobody ever calls them on it. Until now, apparently.

I’m betting every other Democrat politician is in shock right now… “you mean we don’t have to accept their definitions and their rules?!? I’ve never thought of that before…”

Thanks to: Dangerous Intersection, Salon.com

But this post is about another one: “pro-life”. It’s a misleading label, of course, since what they are really about is banning sex outside of marriage, for religious reasons. (Either that, or they haven’t really thought about it, and just go with what feels good: “we’re saving lives!”). Still, it’s a well-chosen one (in marketing terms). After all, who wants to be seen as “anti-life”? That sounds almost like a murderer, or something…

The “antidote” to this problem is to refuse to use their misleading terms, and, instead, call things what they really are. I could give many examples here about the Bush administration, the “war on terror”, the invasion of Iraq, the fact that abortion clinic bombers aren’t called “Christian terrorists”, and so on. But what this post is really about is a term the author of No More Hornets came up with: Pro-Forced Maternity.

I believe this term is infinitely more honest and accurate than “pro-life”. It’s describes what they really want, what they really are about. Not “life”, but control. To force others. And, so, I think we atheists / humanists / secularists ought to spread it. Refuse to use their misleading terms, and describe things as they really are.

So, please, if you agree with this, help spreading the word. Write / blog about this, start using “pro-forced maternity” in conversations, and correct others when they use the common, misleading term (much like the Patriot Act isn’t really about “patriotism”). If this ever reaches the mainstream media (which is perfectly possible), even if they try to “denounce” it as evil secularist propaganda, it could make a lot of people think about this for the first time, and see the “pro-lifers” pro-forced maternity people for what they really are: anti-life, and anti-individual freedom.

I agree with KC on this, of course; atheism is simply the lack of belief in gods, nothing more. To say “you are not a true atheist” for any reason other than “well, you do believe in a god” is an obvious example of the No true Scotsman fallacy.

It is, indeed, something I’ve mentioned in the past: how some people, for varied reasons, redefine words to mean something other than the accepted definintion, up to a point where you can’t have a useful conversation with them.

Some do it to escape from a negative association. E.g. “yes, the Inquisition was horrible, but those were not true Christians.”

Others, like the ones mentioned in the Bligbi post, do so to make the term fit with their own view. “I consider myself an atheist, and I like X, therefore true atheists must also like X.”

And some people are weirder. They make something up, but are not self-confident enough to admit their own originality, so they “steal” an accepted term and use it for what they just came up with. For instance, inventing a really weird set of beliefs — today — and calling it “Christianity”. For bonus points, say that it’s the only “true” Christianity, and that people have been wrong (see, Jesus was actually an alien, and to be saved you must worship pink things… while standing on one foot) for 2000 years.

Person: (talks about a concept that (s)he thinks is pretty new and original, but in fact isn’t.)
Me: Ah, that’s (commonly accepted term for that concept).
Person: See, that’s what I mean! Why do you have to apply labels to everything!? It’s impossible to have a conversation with you!

I’m sure that, by “labels”, those people mean “words in the dictionary”… but why do they always have to use that argument? Do they find the fact that the other person insists on using English (or any other language) too “limiting” for their “vast, open, non-prejudiced” minds?

Sigh…
Sorry for the rant. Never mind that.

However, conservatives have “stolen” Ayn Rand in pretty much the same way that Charles Manson “stole” Helter Skelter, a very good song by the Beatles. The song became associated with a repulsive murderer, while its creators never intended such a thing.

Like I said, it’s the same thing. I can’t say I love Rand’s books and philosophy without being seen as “conservative”. And yet…

1. Ayn Rand was an atheist. Conservatives are mostly Christian (and usually pretty fanatical about it).
2. Ayn Rand had no use for tradition. Conservatives worship tradition.
3. Ayn Rand said that reason should be man’s only absolute. To conservatives, reason is irrelevant; what matters is faith, obedience, duty, tradition (again), etc..
4. Ayn Rand believed in a minimal government. Conservatives like to convince themselves of the same, but in fact they want their governments to legislate morality, outlawing anything they believe to be “wicked” – even if done by consenting adults. (edit: if you don’t see what I mean here, read the 2nd comment)
5. Ayn Rand believed in the heroic. Conservatives have no use for it.
6. Ayn Rand believed that man’s own happiness is the moral purpose of his life. Conservatives believe in sacrifice to “the country” (much like socialists believe in sacrifice to “the people” – see, they aren’t so different after all), and servitude to God.
7. Ayn Rand believed in progress (though not in the sense that socialists say “progressive”), and in improving our lives. Conservatives do everything in their power to return to “better times”, or, at least, to keep everything as it is.
8. Ayn Rand believed that only rational beings have rights. Conservatives have no problem with killing people in a war (they’re foreigners, anyway), but believe embryos, which aren’t sentient and don’t even feel pain, are “sacred”, and can’t be harmed, even if it means sacrificing living people with diseases.
9. Ayn Rand said that morality comes from rational principles. Conservatives believe it comes from God, that there is no rational reason to be “good” except that God wills it.
10. Ayn Rand believed in the non-initiation of force. Conservatives invaded Iraq for no reason at all.
11. Ayn Rand believed in freedom. Conservatives believe in freedom to agree with them.

And I could go on.

Dear conservatives: please stop trying to steal one of my favorite thinkers for yourselves. She wasn’t like you at all, and you are only showing that you never understood what she wrote (or never read it at all) in the first place. Thank you.

Let’s hope this is but the beginning of a wave of people finding out where their balls are.

And I’d really like to see it happening, though I’m not too optimistic.

For instance, take U.S. Democrats. While they criticize the Bush administration, they always say things like “mismanagement of the war”, “faulty intelligence on WMDs”, “negligence”, and so on.

Where is the politician (Democrat or Republican) with the courage to say that Bush lied? That the war was, and is, all based on deceit? Is it political suicide to say the truth, these days? Is it barely acceptable to say that the war wasn’t handled very well, but not to say that it was wrong from the start? That there never were any WMDs there, or a connection to 9/11, or any kind of threat to the U.S.?

How many politicians supported the war because they didn’t want to be seen as “weak”? Were they all deceived by the administration’s lies? I doubt it. They simply went along with the lies, because they’d lose influence if they spoke up – they’d be seen as “weak on terrorism”, as (perish the thought) “liberals”.

The Iraq war isn’t being “mismanaged”, it’s going exactly like the Bush administration wants: never-ending. Why, if the war ever came to an end, people might want their lost civil liberties back… or believe that it was OK to criticize the president again without being “unpatriotic”… or notice the state of the economy… and we don’t want that, do we?

You see, I’m far from a socialist – I’d say I’m something akin to a libertarian, although there’s no libertarian-like party around here. However, I do consider myself a liberal – because, around here, “liberal” means someone who cherishes individual freedom (real freedom, not just “freedom to agree with me”), and who opposes any kind of authoritarism. It has nothing to do with socialism or collectivism or “big government” or social security or the “welfare state” or all those meanings they ascribe to the term; instead, its meaning comes from the origin of the word “liberal”: liberty.

But Americans, as I said, use it like a dirty word.

Strange country.

If you go by the meaning of the words, “liberal” comes from liberty, a.k.a. freedom. “conservative” comes from conserve, keep, maintain.

I think most people would agree that, from that definitions, liberals would be “better”, right? Freedom is good (though some would argue against “too much” freedom, as that’s unpatriotic) , and “conserving” usually means “holding back”.

Of course, we’ve seen before that things can be misnamed. Still, we don’t usually see conservatives saying that so-called “liberals” aren’t liberal at all, nor do we see the opposite, so it’s my guess that the terms have mostly been accepted, and that people usually don’t think about what the words actually mean.

Still, my point remains: in my opinion, at least, and in the opinion of any who value freedom and in moving towards a better world, rather than staying as we are (or even as we supposedly were, in some golden age), the meaning of “liberal” is much, much better than the meaning of “conservative”.

Again: I’m talking, here, about the meaning of the words, not about what liberals and conservatives really are.

By the way, I do not consider myself a “liberal”. Or a “conservative”. I’d say I’m mostly a libertarian (with a lot of Ayn Rand influences), though there is no libertarian(ish) party in Portugal (so I tend to vote against people I despise).

More to come…

I’ll try to make this post shorter by making it just the first of a series of posts about this theme.

“Liberals” and “conservatives” are two terms used in some of the most intense discussions and flamewars on the Internet. This has happened for decades. But what do they mean, really? I don’t believe that they mean the same to everyone – independently of what one’s own position is.

Let’s start by trying to come to some definitions, then.

Here in Portugal, those terms aren’t commonly used – we usually say “left-wing” and “right-wing”, which are similar to those other two, but not exactly the same. Of course, many people have different definitions here, as well, but, on average, we seem to believe that “left-wing” means more concerned with “social equality” and “compassion for the poor”, while being mostly permissive. “Right-wing”, on the other hand, tends to be “pro-big business”, and doesn’t care much about that “equality” stuff, but is usually more authoritarian.

To complicate matters further, the leading two parties here, PS and PSD, while traditionally “left-wing” and “right-wing”, in that order, have, in recent years, come so close that they are almost indistinguishable from each other. So, what makes one “left-wing” and the other “right-wing”, if they seem to believe in exactly the same, and establish the same policies, is beyond me. I guess those labels are there mostly from tradition, as they were different in the late 80s and early 90s.

The USA, on the other hand, seems to be different, as the two terms, “liberal” and “conservative”, really apply to two different philosophies, though they are so distorted as to not have anything to do with what the actual words mean. “Liberal”, there, is almost a dirty word – it means a Socialist, someone who doesn’t believe in hard work, but wants to take from the rich to give to the poor, someone who is almost pro-Communist, is part of some great gay / atheist lobby that controls Hollywood and the media, is pseudo-intellectualish, is a flower power anti-war tree-hugging hippie, is mostly unpatriotic, and so on.

A “conservative”, on the other hand, believes in hard work (or, at least, boasts so), is a God-fearing born-again Christian, believes that the poor are poor only because they are too lazy to work, that America must always be the world’s top power, even if it requries the use of intimidation and force. He also doesn’t believe in such myths as “the greenhouse effect” or “global warming”, and still has some racist and sexist beliefs (though these are usually hidden, at least in part, as they are out of fashion these days). To him, most science and scientific research is “ungodly” and a waste of time, if not actually dangerous, unless you’re talking about weapons research, which is always a good idea – after all, America must stay on top, and those Soviets Arabs are going to attack any day now. And, if the president is a conservative and you criticize him, you’re an unpatriotic traitor.

Both sides believe in legislating morality, unfortunately, though conservatives care mostly about banning “ungodly” things like homosexuality, gay marriage and so on, while the liberals worry about “thinking of the children” and, thus, censoring the media.

Now, you’re going to say that “no way, liberals/conservatives aren’t really like that, they are…”. And I welcome those comments – though what I wrote above is certainly what a lot of Americans believe… at least about the other side.

To be continued…

The thing is: a lot of things that sane, rational people oppose have names which are absolutely wrong, and which were… skillfully named by its proponents, because, to many people, opposing them means opposing what the names suggest… and what the names suggest always seems “good”.

A few examples:

• The PATRIOT Act. “You oppose the PATRIOT Act? What, are you unpatriotic? Why do you hate America?”. This one is almost as blatant as naming Auschwitz “Camp Freedom” would be. The PATRIOT Act doesn’t help America, it only ensures that government organizations can do what they damn please, without warrants, and without giving a damn about that pesky Constitution thing. Yet, it was so cleverly named that most congressmen didn’t dare to vote against it – after all, who wants to be seen as “unpatriotic”?
• Digital Rights Management, a.k.a. DRM. Sounds good, a system to manage your “rights”, doesn’t it? But it’s no more than a system for movie and record companies to control what you can do with stuff you bought legally. In other words, it takes rights away from you. “Digital Restrictions Management” would be more precise. Yet, they’ve manage to convince most people that anyone who is against DRM must be a dirty, stealing pirate…
• Trusted Computing: again, sounds nice, doesn’t it? After all, with all the viruses, worms, spyware and such (hmm, another one… see the next entry), it would be nice to have a system that made computers more secure, more “trustworthy”, wouldn’t it? Indeed, but “Treacherous Computing”, as Richard Stallman calls it, is, in fact, a system to make hardware run only this or that software. Imagine a world where PCs could only run Windows, or only Microsoft software, or couldn’t play MP3s (Trusted Computing has much in common with DRM, they’re facets of the same problem), or couldn’t run any freeware, or any open source/free software. A world where your computer doesn’t obey you – it obeys its makers, even after you bought it. “Trusted”, here, means “it does only what we want”. But the name sounds nice and comforting, doesn’t it?
• Computer viruses / worms / spyware. This is mostly due to journalists’ technical ignorance than due to any kind of “conspiracy”, but it’s still very annoying to hear that “there’s a new computer virus out there”. There’s no such thing as a “computer virus”; there are Windows viruses (and, now, a couple of Macintosh ones). There are no “internet worms”, only Windows worms, Microsoft Outlook worms and Microsoft Exchange worms. There’s no such thing as “spyware” unless you run Windows. It’s really irritating that people still think computers are some unstable, crash-prone, insecure, virus-ridden, unknowable machines, when it is, and always has been, a Microsoft problem. And news reporters only help maintain that error.

There are certainly many more examples. But the point is: maybe we shouldn’t let the “bad guys” name things. We probably can’t change public perception, but, at least, when we talk, when we blog, and such, we should call things what they really are. If someone creates something to take away people’s freedom and calls it “Freedom Something”, when we realize it, we shouldn’t keep using that name.

Just my thoughts. Feel free to ignore them, as always.

The argument goes like this: if he can, then he isn’t really omnipotent. If he can’t, then he isn’t really omnipotent.

Of course, it isn’t so simple, and that’s why this has been discussed for centuries – and I’m guessing that some people through history have been burned for heresy for asking this question.

Read the article, it’s very detailed and includes many different “answers” to the paradox.

Freedom is a concept that most people find desirable, at least for themselves – many people, however, would like nothing else than to take away other people’s freedom. But I digress – what I mean is that, to most people, “freedom = good.”

However, many freedoms have been taken away in the name of freedom. Confused yet? The problem is that many people only “remember” the “freedom = good” part, and forget about what the word really means, and will support anyone who says he’s “fighting for freedom” or “defending freedom”… regardless of what he actually does.

This is not new. Ever heard of the French Revolution? It was supposedly about “freedom”, yet it was a reign of terror that virtually destroyed the country, and caused the death of millions. “Freedom?” You would have your head cut off if you looked at the “freedom-loving” revolucionaries in the wrong way, or if anyone – without needing a shred of evidence – accused you of being a “counter-revolucionary”. Because they said they were “fighting for freedom”, all their actions, anything they ever did, was completely excusable, and any criticism would label one as “anti-freedom” – to the guillotine!

A more current example is when a particular country is equated with “freedom”. Yes, that country may have once been the most free in the world, a bastion of freedom itself. But that doesn’t mean that “freedom” and “that country” are the same thing. The country is free only while it stays free. It wasn’t like some badge for perpetuity, you know. It’s perfectly possible that that country becomes “less free” and that other countries become “more free”. This is, of course, what I think the Bush administration, and their supporters, are doing. They say they’re “for freedom”, so anyone who is against them is “against freedom”… but from whom do the anti-freedom measures, such as the PATRIOT Act, come? Since when has disagreeing with the President made one a “traitor” or a “terrorist helper”? Never mind invading other countries…

Freedom isn’t automatic. You aren’t free just because you once were. And someone can say he’s “for freedom”… and be lying.

Yet, the level of hypocrisy I have to maintain… disgusts me.

And, no matter how much I try to avoid it, I always think of Ayn Rand’s “The Fountainhead”‘s Howard Roark, and how he ended up working in a granite quarry, because he refused to compromise on his principles.

Of course, Rand’s books are exaggerated – they’re books of extremes, of “black and white”, without shades of gray. I have responsibilities, I have a house to maintain, cats to feed, and debts to pay. I have dreams, which, while not directly related to material possessions, include some material possessions in them. So I can’t – right? – leave my job because of a “normal” level of hypocrisy, of intrigue, of “rewarding the bad workers and punishing the good”. Besides, most places are as bad as this one. And working on my own is still a bit far away.

Still…

I sometimes wonder if I’m not really sacrificing myself – what really matters, such as my integrity, my sense of honesty, and my self-respect, for something that, while important, isn’t that important.

Because I certainly don’t like myself as I say “good morning” to the department head, when I have absolutely no reason to respect him, know he’s incompetent and a liar, and wish him the worst morning in the world.

Naturally, people have many different definitions of “good” and “evil”. Some believe “good” is doing what a God wants, and “evil” is the opposite of that. Some think “good” is helping people, and “evil” is being selfish, caring only for yourself. To some, “good” is doing what others expect of you, obeying authority, and so on. And many people don’t even believe in those concepts themselves – they believe they are just labels applied by Man.

Thinking a bit about it, I mostly agree with the Ayn Rand / Objectivist concept: “good” is whatever promotes life – not simply survival, but life as a rational being. “Evil”, then, is whatever promotes death – not just a physical death, but death of the self, death of your soul, death of your joy to live – a kind of “living death” (and I’m not talking about zombies ).

For instance, I believe that “good” equals justice, truth, honesty, courage, integrity, protecting the innocent, and such. But I don’t think I’m in the majority.

A lot of people don’t even think in terms of “good and evil”. And, among those who do, a lot seem to define “good” as “doing what God wants”, and “evil” as the opposite of that.

Of course, since God (or gods) don’t usually talk to people, they use the next best thing: priests, religious leaders, “holy books”, and so on.

If I believed in a particular God, and one of the priests came to me and said that God wanted me to sacrifice a child to him, I’d, naturally, doubt that priest – the (supposedly good) God I worshipped couldn’t ask me such a thing. But what if it was God himself telling me to do it (like in the Bible, when he tells Abraham to sacrifice Isaac)? What if it wasn’t just a “dream” or a “feeling”, but something really believable to a mostly scientific mind, something that made me be absolutely sure that, no, it wasn’t a priest pretending to speak for a god, nor was it just my hallucination, but it was God himself talking to me? And telling me to do it?

I like to believe that I’d repudiate him then and there, without hesitation. A god who did that, to me, would be evil. A sadistic being.

But many people would say that refusing would be evil; that, as I said, it was God who defined “good” and “evil”…

A “Creed of Death” (CoD) is my term for any belief (including religion), philosophy or political system which leads to death instead of life.

Note that I don’t mean “death” merely in the physical sense; in other words, I am not referring to some kind of suicidal cult, or a cabal of necromancers. I mean a “death in life”, a living death.

Common characteristics of a Creed of Death:

1. a doctrine of sacrifice – for your neighbor, for a god, for the people, for the state, for the community, for your brother, for everyone but yourself
2. selfishness and self-interest are considered the worst of evils, while altruism, service and (again) sacrifice are considered good
3. the idea that life is suffering, that happiness and joy are mere illusions
4. the belief that this world is evil, that it “belongs to the devil”; “of the world” becomes another term for evil
5. since the world is evil, a desire to get away from it, at least in mind only; to achieve nothingness, to be a zero
6. believing that everything physical in this life/world is evil; anything good must be “spiritual”, in some next life to be attained if and only if you lead a life of service and sacrifice
7. the idea that man is flawed, inherently evil, with nothing good ever coming from him; that one is worthy only through (drum roll…) service and sacrifice, and otherwise should apologize for being alive
8. an obsession with humility and ordinariness: being great is evil, being a genius is evil, being rich and successful is evil, being happy is evil; only the “common people”, the “little people” are good; to be special is a thing of shame, to achieve something beyond what others can is selfish arrogance
9. the end of the concept of individual rights: “what right have you to live in confort when there are people out there starving? You are lucky to have so much, it is your duty to share with them.”
10. collectivism becomes good, individualism becomes evil
11. little or no regard for human life (after all, we’re all evil, lowly beings): think the Inquisition, concentration camps, Stalin’s purges…

Notes

• a Creed of Death is not necessarily an organized thing; many people (yes, I know some in real life) believe in all of the above by themselves, not from belonging to a church or group.
• most Believers of Death (BoDs) are usually very unhappy people, and spread unhappiness wherever they go. They do it without any evil intent, and they don’t realize they are making other people (usually the ones they care the most for) unhappy; it’s just the way they are. Or they believe that happy people are deluded, and that the BoDs are doing them a favor by shattering their “illusions” early, by teaching them about the “real world”.

Now, I ask you (yes, you ): do you know any people or groups like this? I’d like to hear your experiences / opinions…

I have. Several times, by different people. They could never justify their affirmation: they just “felt” that I was one, because of some ideal I had (and possibly have), or because I cared a bit about something that nobody cared about.

It wasn’t something I annoyed people with. I’ve never been a “preacher” of any kind. I believe in complete honesty, yet I never went around preaching honesty or attacking people for not being 100% honest 100% of the time. I don’t pirate music, software or movies, yet most people I know do so, and I’ve never bothered them about it. If they ask my opinion, I give it, but no more.

I’ve never attacked, or told people to attack, someone for disagreeing with me. I certainly don’t intend to become a martyr and kill myself in a blaze of glory to prove some point.

But I still am labeled a “fanatic” from time to time. Why?

My guess is that we live in a time where it’s so common, so fashionable to be apathetic and indifferent to everything, to not give a damn, that someone who actually has the smallest ideal, who says, even softly, “this is right”, or “that is wrong”, or who loves or dislikes something and is capable of explaining why, instead of “oh, I just do!”… someone who cares about some subject or question… well, that someone stands out a bit.

It’s uncommon, rare. And, to most people, what are the standards, if not the majority? The average – not in terms of “reasonable” or “healthy”, but in terms of “the way most people are/act”. If everyone is apathetic, then apathy is the standard, it’s normal – and if caring a bit about something stands out, then that’s abnormal. If apathy is normal, then caring about anything makes someone a… what do we call someone who cares too much, who is obsessed about something in an unhealthy way?

Ah, I remember. A “fanatic”.

Fanaticism, or being a fanatic, can be described as being so sure about something that you refuse to ever think about it again for even a millisecond. That thing is, or becomes, the most important thing in your life, its “driving force”.

Some people confuse fanaticism with merely an intense love or belief. I believe the difference is mostly the above: a fanatic never thinks about it again, his “certainty” encompasses everything. If you love something or someone, or intensely believe in something, but can still think rationally about it, see its faults, its “chips in the armor”, then you are not a fanatic.

A fanatic is not only incapable of admitting he is wrong about something, but also incapable of admitting it is possible for him to be wrong about it.

Not all fanaticism is about religion or beliefs: it doesn’t really depend on the importance of the subject. You can be an absolute fanatic about something unimportant (like a sports club), and you can have a true belief in some philosophy, religion or creed, or intensely love something or someone, without being a fanatic about it.

Being ready to die for a belief doesn’t necessarily make you a fanatic (I believe some things are worth fighting for and even dying for), but if you’re ready to kill for it, then you certainly are one.

It’s absolutely impossible to argue with a fanatic, as he’s incapable of rational thought about it. No matter how many contradictions you reveal in his belief, no matter what proof you show him that he is wrong. If you ever get any near to provoking the slightest doubt, he will violently defend his belief, sometimes becoming murderously violent. His belief is his life; without it it wouldn’t make sense to go on.

But it got me thinking. Which is always dangerous.

I’m not going to tackle whether opposites do attract or not, but, instead, what does “opposites” mean in this context.

When you say that “opposites” attract, it seems that what comes to mind is a second person who is completely unlike the first. With me so far? Now, does “completely” mean completely? As in “completely unlike the first person in every respect”? Or just one, but a particularly strong one? Or a couple of them?

Let’s take myself as an example. What’s an “opposite” of myself? Is he/she a person who dislikes computers and technology? Someone who hates to think? Someone who doesn’t question anything he is told? Someone who has a perfectly tidy home? Someone who hates cats? Someone who loves commercial music and thinks heavy metal is “just noise”? Someone who hates reading? A soccer fanatic? A seafood lover? A conservative? A religious fanatic? A stubborn person who is incapable of changing his mind or admitting a mistake? A man who is obsessed with cars or motorcycles? An incredibly slow typist? A guy who spends all his free time watching TV? A person obsessed with fashion and looks? A collectivist who believes the competent have a duty to support the incompetent? A person who believes that a cell phone is “just for talking”?

Or does it take all of the above? That would certainly make an “anti-Pedro”. But is that what people mean by “opposite” in “opposites attract”? I don’t think so.

I guess that what they mean is just someone who is very different from the first person in a general way, or whose main trait is the opposite of his/hers.

Or maybe I really think too much about things.

People seem to have some difficulty in separating:

• tastes or preferences;
• opinions;
• personality traits; and
• genuine principles.

How to tell them apart?

• a taste is something you like or dislike. Example: I like heavy metal music.
• an opinion is something you believe to be true about something. For instance, I think that George W. Bush is a criminal and a monster. (that’s for another article, by the way.)
• a trait is characteristic you have, which you may control to a certain degree. For instance, I tend to be a rather shy person.
• a principle is something which makes you do (or not do) something because you believe it is right (or wrong). Example: I don’t pirate music, software or movies, because I believe that doing so is wrong.

Easy, right? But I’ve seen people — quite often — believing that they will “betray their principles” if they eat some food they don’t like (and possibly never tasted), or if they overcome a minor character flaw, or if they change their minds about something. People can be very, very defensive about their mistakes, their flaws, or their changing of mind.

And, so, everything is turned into a “principle”, which means that nothing about them can ever change, as that would be a “betrayal”…

I believe it is absurd to cheapen the meaning of “principle” by saying that everything is a principle. As someone said, if every(thing, one, etc.) is special, then specialness is ordinary… If everything about you (even, say, your favorite color) is a “principle”, then your principles don’t really amount to much…

Apparently, people think of “an individualist” as “a manipulating, selfish, self-centered bastard who uses people and is incapable of caring about anyone”.

Which is quite a weird definition, because it doesn’t have anything to do with the word!

From Dictionary.com, an individualist is:

n.

1. One that asserts individuality by independence of thought and action.
2. An advocate of individualism.

Isn’t that quite different from the first definition?

Individualism is the opposite of collectivism. Dictionary.com defines it as:

n.

The principles or system of ownership and control of the means of production and distribution by the people collectively, usually under the supervision of a government.

and collectivist as:

adj : subscribing to the socialistic doctrine of ownership by the people collectively [syn: collectivistic, collectivized, collectivised, state-controlled] n : a person who belongs to the political left [syn: leftist, left-winger]

But that’s in the economical/political sense. On a more social and personal sense, collectivism puts the group above the individual. In other words, according to collectivism, every individual has a “duty” to sacrifice himself for the group if necessary. Furthermore, the group has the “right” to decide what the individual owes it – and also the right to decide to sacrifice that individual, if necessary.

Individualism means saying no! to that horror.

Individualism means believing that an individual has the right to live his own life as he sees fit, without sacrificing himself to others nor others to himself. That an individual has the right to pursue his own happiness, and that doing so is not only his right, but the moral thing to do – that he’s not being a “selfish evil bastard” because he does so.

Individualism is also about choice. It means that one is responsible for his own choices and actions – it’s not the fault (or the credit) of his skin color, his parents, his country of birth, his zodiac sign, his/her gender or the money he began with. Collectivism, on the other hand, says that it is those things that define a person, that choice (and thus personal responsibility) is an illusion – that one can’t be blamed for comitting a crime and can’t be praised for a great achievement, because both are “owed” to society.

An individualist can (and usually does) care about other people – but that’s the people he chooses to care about. Individualism has nothing to do with being able or unable, or willing or unwilling, to care about others. The point is that an invidualist cares and loves – or doesn’t – by choice, not duty.

An invidualist recognizes a hero as such, and a criminal as such. A collectivist would probably say that the criminal “just has a different, valid way of life” and/or “never really had a chance, he’s a victim of society, we all have responsibility in this matter”, and that the hero is guilty of making others feel “small and inadequate”, and that he was just lucky, was “dealt a better hand by fate” – and, thus, it is the criminal who deserves – and is owed – our help.

Guess which I choose to be.

But a lot of people make a big mistake here – they believe that non-conformists are people who are intentionally different, people who do something because others don’t, and don’t do something because others do. In other words, people who consciously try to be “different”.

And that’s not “non-conformism” at all.

Trying to be different is really the same as trying to be the same – it’s living in function of others. It’s having no personality, no opinions, no tastes, no self. What others do is the basis of what you do, whether you copy it or oppose it.

Many teenagers (but it’s not limited to them) err in this way – one could call it their “rebel phase”, but it’s “rebellion” without a real cause, a real objective – they just want to shock others, to be noticed. They try to affirm their identity by opposing whatever they see around them – no matter if whatever they see is right or wrong.

A “non-conformist” – or, rather, an individualist – does, instead, what he likes, what he believes is right, what he wants. If he does something completely unique, he doesn’t care; if he does something everyone else does, he doesn’t care. What others do is up to them, but he chooses for himself.

For instance, I like a music genre that is completely unfashionable, that almost no friend of mine likes, that isn’t ever heard on the radio. Yet I love chocolate, which most people also love. Do I stop listening to heavy metal to “fit in”? No. Do I stop eating chocolate to be different, to “separate myself”? Nope, that would be quite stupid. Both are my tastes – whether others share them or not didn’t, and doesn’t matter at all.