Secular Freedom vis-à-vis Religious Conformity. Open societies, by which I mean societies rooted in alpha materialism/fundamentalism (coupled, for the male gender, to anti-idealism/antitranscendentalism) but extending into worldly naturalism/humanism (coupled, for the female gender, to antirealism/antinonconformism) in democratic fashion, do not and cannot endorse the concept of religious coercion, or, to speak less bluntly, of religious conformity to the path of Truth (for males) and (notwithstanding the state-subordinate significance of Beauty) the beautiful approach to Truth (for females), and for the simple reason that they are irreligious if not antireligious and therefore in no position to encourage everyone – or as many people as possible – to toe-the-religious-line and conform to ecclesiastical requirement. Such societies, while they might uphold erroneous and fundamentally false notions of God, whether in respect of Devil the Mother hyped as God at the state-hegemonic metachemical level of religious materialism (I say nothing of the Daughter of the Devil at the church-subordinate metachemical level of religious fundamentalism) or of the Son of Man hyped as God at the state-hegemonic physical level of religious naturalism (I say nothing of Man the Father at the church-subordinate physical level of religious humanism), are ethnically incapable – ethnic minorities notwithstanding – of upholding or advancing anything even approaching, in traditional Catholic fashion, a true concept of God such that is removed from anything axially state-hegemonic/church-subordinate in its relevance to church-hegemonic/state-subordinate axial criteria. Consequently they do not believe in any kind of institutional enforcement or, shall we say, encouragement of people to conform to ‘the will of God’ (though this is a problematic term that owes much to the conventionally false association of God, even by many Catholics, with Devil the Mother hyped as God in creatoresque Old Testament vein). They believe, lacking any true sense of religion, in allowing people to decide for themselves and make up their own minds as to how much, if at all, they are willing to conform to religious precepts or, indeed, prefer to go against the whole grain of religion in blatantly secular, atheistic, scientific terms. Of course, there are valid reasons, even in church-hegemonic/state-subordinate societies, why some people may want to do that, not least the difficulty of adhering to anything genuine godly when even the nearest approximation to Truth is manifestly false and somehow corrupted by criteria owing more, in Bible-punching fundamentalist vein, to what I would call state-hegemonic/church-subordinate criteria, not least in respect of Devil the Mother hyped as God. Still, no secular society, whether contemporary or decadent, protestant or catholic, will endorse widespread religious conformity or devotion at the expense of what it upholds as freedom, which includes the freedom to opt out of religious conventions and be as irreligious if not anti-religious as one likes. At least such societies have a certain inherent honesty and paradoxical logic to them which is in keeping with their fundamentally secular if not exactly atheistic natures. But a society that really was determined to establish and maintain a commitment to genuine godliness (coupled, for females, to antidevilishness) would have a duty, sooner or later, to encourage conformity to religious practices or norms, if only to safeguard the new order of religion against reaction and ensure that obsolete institutions, including those pertaining to religious traditions, were undermined and systematically removed from society. In a society that does know what Truth is, any refusal to endorse it by reactionary or traditional powers would be subject to censure and judged contrary to the interests of the people, meaning, in that context, a religiously sovereign people who had rights in relation to their sovereignty, including the right to be protected from reactionary subversives and any kind of entrenched adherence to ungodly practices. In that kind of society, which is essentially an ideal society, one would not be free to please oneself and do what one wanted irrespective of its moral nature. The people, on the contrary, would be given every encouragement to do what was morally in their best interests and simultaneously be protected, as a corollary of this, from those who would thwart them from fully enjoying their religious rights by dint of continuing to adhere to some alternative principle, one either humanistic, naturalistic, or cosmic. In such a society the development of religious freedom would entail the reduction if not elimination not only of political freedom but, no less significantly, of economic and scientific freedoms as well. If God is to triumph, and hold sway over the Antidevil, which is antimetachemical female binding, woman, man, and the Devil must be defeated, since the noumenal reign of God over the Antidevil can only be achieved at the expense of the reign (phenomenally) of woman over antiman, and that in turn will have grave implications for both the noumenal reign of the Devil over Antigod and, subsequently, the reign (phenomenally) of man over antiwoman, neither of which latter types of reign has anything to do, in any case, with church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria but, rather, with their converse.