196

I would argue that anyone who adopts these values is a slave to themselves, controlled by whoever claims to share these values but in fact uses them for control. These values no longer serve our self-interest or nature, and as the entire point of values is to make judgement of relative "right" and "wrong" from one's own perspective, we should be free to mold them as need be.

Religious values serve to externalize one's own will to a "god." This rationalizes why nature is able to get away with what is "forbidden" (for the purpose of making the masses feel guilty and fall back to the priests for forgiveness). When we realize that values are not absolute, and can be molded according to individual will, we do away with the need for a "god" to externalize our personal moral preferences.

As Nietzsche said, when god dies, we must each become a god unto ourselves, or try to lie to ourselves that god still lives and remain slaves to the externalized will of the long-dead others who invented him.

There's a difference between seeking peace and being a pacifist when trampled by those who are not capable of peace. I agree with these religions insomuch as peace is always a preferable state, and should be sought. We should go out of our way to seek peace, and respond peacefully until it is no longer possible. I do not advocate undue vengeance or striking first. But when repeatedly struck on the face it is not always best to "turn the other cheek." Sometimes that works. But sometimes the offender will only strike again. And with those who will only listen to violence for violence, there should be no shame or fear of violating a religious axiom for dealing violently with them.

There is no glory in denying our carnal nature to fight for self-preservation in the face of physical or emotional harm.