Easier than getting a law passed

Okay, I had decided after my burnout that I didn’t want to get annoyed about things again that easily, but after quite some recent stuff about people denying services of various kinds to others based on their race/gender/sexual orientation, I have something to say about the topic myself.

If you have a problem with serving a person in your job because said person is, according to your eyes or to that personal belief system of yours, the wrong race/gender/sexual orientation or whatever, there is a much easier solution than passing laws: Don’t work in a service job. Yes, it is that easy.

If you take a job in service, no matter whether as a cashier, a pharmacist, a doctor (technically, doctors and nurses also work in service, since they provide health service), a pizza baker, or something else, you will have to be ready to serve everyone - as long as they are ready to uphold their part of the deal and hand you money for it. It doesn’t matter what your religious book or your preacher or your conscience has to say about it. If your conscience tells you to absolutely not do it again, then get another job, one where you don’t have to do that again.

And if you consider yourself a Christian, you might want to read all of your holy book one of these days, not just the part that justifies your prejudices. It’s going to take a while, especially if you read all of it, Old and New Testament. You might be shocked by the content especially of the New Testament. You see, this guy called Jesus whom you believe in, he had a strange way of seeing things. In essence, he only wanted people to do one thing: be nice to others. He sided with the poorest, with the outcasts of society. And he said there was only one rule to follow: love others like you love yourself (or, in some cases of extreme self-loathing, perhaps a little more than yourself).

The same, by the way, goes for the religious organisations operating public places over here in Germany, like kindergartens, schools, or hospitals. Stop looking down on people who you think have done the wrong thing. Stop choosing your employees merely by their religious belief and their marital status (nobody who got divorced and remarried is allowed to work in a Roman-Catholic kindergarten, school, or hospital). You want to serve society? You want to actually get people to listen to what you say? You want your slice of the cake? Then act like a responsible part of society and accept its reality. Divorce is reality, religious freedom is reality. Deal with it!

You don’t need to make laws to allow people to discriminate against others based on their personal belief. What you need, is to make laws to forbid people to discriminate against others for whatever reason (religious belief, race, gender, sexual orientation, whatever).

Don't Encourage Him!

I think even outside of Germany, some people might have heard about Günther Grass and his poem (if that it can be called) against Israel. I have not really followed the storm this brought about in German media very closely, but I thought something when it all started: Why the heck are you encouraging him?

First of all, I have to admit I don’t really think very highly of Mr. Grass, unlike most people in culture here in Germany. He doesn’t write the kind of books I like to read and I find he’s highly overrated as an author. This, however, is just my own opinion and has nothing to do with why I mostly ignored Mr. Grass and his poem.

While I have to admit that not everything Israel does is right, I also realize that it is very difficult (historically speaking) for Germans to criticise. However, World War 2 ended about 70 years ago (ok, 67 years ago this May). It must be possible after a time during which most people active in the war have ceased to live for a German to criticise Israel without being crucified for it. But even that is not the reason why I have ignored Mr. Grass instead of being angry with him.

From my point of view, the ‘poem’ itself isn’t really worth all the energy wasted on it. It’s merely a way Mr. Grass (who has not been in the limelight much lately) tries to get noticed. Like a kid who knows a certain swearword will get the parents to react and notice the kid, Mr. Grass has whipped up a quick poem, so people start talking about him again.

Now, the best way to get a kid to stop using a swearword is to ignore it. So, logically, the best way to get Mr. Grass to stop embarrassing himself would be … to ignore him. Talking about Mr. Grass (about his latest ‘poem’ as much as about the ‘erotic’ ones he made a few years ago) only encourages him to continue down this road.

Seriously, what would have happened, if nobody had reacted to the ‘poem?’ Nothing. Israel wouldn’t even have heard about it. A few stupid neo-Nazi might have gotten a cheap thrill out of reading and reciting it, but apart from that…

Please, media people, no matter how little is happening in the world, be so good as to not encourage Mr. Grass in the future. Save the world from a few bad poems this way.

Religion and Sexuality

Sexuality is a natural need for humans – without it, we would be extinct, after all. Yet especially three religions (Jewish, Christian and Moslem belief) treat sex like the worst thing on earth. Why?

Every society makes its own set of rules which are based on what the society deems right or wrong. Some of the rules are basically existent everywhere: no stealing, no killing. It’s necessary for us to lay down the rules once two or more people live somewhere, to put down the dos and don’ts. A major influence for the rules, though, is not just logic (which is, basically, behind ‘no stealing’ and ‘no killing’), but also belief. As a such, the modern western democracies really are Christian modern western democracies – which explains the ‘troubles’ we’re experiencing with Moslems these days. Christian belief and Christian moral are the basics for our code of conduct, for our idea of right and wrong. And one thing that used to be very wrong (outside marriage at least) is sex.

If you take a look at the 68 revolution (which started in 1968), you will realize that the idea of free sex (meaning sex without limitation to one partner … or one gender) was a political statement. We do not want your morals and we do not want your laws (under which each parent or landlord who allowed an unmarried couple to sleep in the same room was considered a criminal – it was true here in Germany at that time). We are making love (read: having sex) with whom we want, where we want (even in public places – absolutely against morals at that time … and today) and when we want. We do not wait until we’re married, we do not restrict ourselves to having sex with one person only throughout our life – we even have sex with a couple of people at the same time. It was a slap in the face of society at that time.

But why the sex? Because the Christian society abhors sex in all forms. It is ‘allowed’ to have sex for one reason only: to propagate. Whenever you have sex (and, of course, only with your husband/wife), you must have the goal of creating another child as well. It is well understood by the church that you will not produce a child every time, but you have to ‘try for’ a child whenever you sleep with your partner (so no preventive measures). You are, indeed, not even supposed to enjoy it.

Which is stupid. Nature (or God, depending on your view of the world) has given humans something pretty unique in the animal kingdom: orgasms. Beside us, chimpanzees are the only beings on earth (as far as we know) capable of achieving an orgasm. The idea of it, though, is pretty clever: instead of giving a species a certain time of the month/year during which they feel the need to propagate, nature has given us an urge to have sex (because we enjoy it) whenever our needs are taken care of. You see, we’ve lived in various areas throughout our evolution (or have been placed in various climates by God, if you prefer that), so it was a different time of the year at which we should ideally give birth to children. By not setting a certain time (nine full months before the ideal time for new children), but instead giving us this urge, nature (or God) took care of this problem. In other words: we are supposed to enjoy sex, so we have enough of it to keep our species from going extinct! Even the bible sees propagation as an important part of our lives…

There’s a strange thing in the bible – and its interpretation –, though: On one hand, the church claims the only reason for having sex should be to propagate. On the other hand, one of the duties of a wife is to be sexually available to her husband at any time – even when she’s not able to conceive a child. Logic? No. Works the other way as well? No, even though by now we know women feel a stronger urge for sex while they’re actually able to conceive. Theoretically, to maximize the chance of children, it should be the woman’s decision when to have sex.

But why is sex a sin? Because, the bible tells us, humans only had the urge after the Original Sin (you know: tree, apple, knowledge – that stuff). The moment Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge (the fruit is unknown, the apple is not in the bible), they gained knowledge and thus lost their innocence. And only after this moment, the bible tells us, they realized they were different from each other and covered those differences (read: genitalia) in shame. Now, why the hell were they ashamed? They would have had to be very blind, indeed, not to realize that animals were different from them, just as plants were. And Adam must have realized before that Eve did not look like that slightly shaky picture of himself he saw in the water every time he bowed down to drink some.

It was only after they were driven from Eden, Adam and Eve started to have sex. They must have overcome their shame enough, therefore, to take off the stuff they had used to cover their differences and get down together.

What’s written in the bible is, of course, not the word of God, but the word of man – of several men, as it is. And they already lived in a society in which people covered their differences. But what’s it with sex?

Well, from the Christian view of the world, the bad thing about sex is this: it’s fun (for humans, at least). Christian belief says that this life, our life, is supposed to be miserable – only in the afterlife, in Paradise, are we supposed to enjoy ourselves (and not through sex, of course).

The trick with the afterlife is quite clever, actually. By promising a good time in the next world, it’s easier to make sure the poor (in most ancient/medieval societies the vast majority) would not rise and overthrow the rich (still the minority in every society). Even better: the more people suffer in this world, the more joy they will find in the next. People should really line up for martyrdom.

Sex is not part of that – but not having sex seems to be a major criteria for becoming a saint/martyr: especially the female saints or martyrs normally either died as virgins (quite often because they did not want to have sex with a heathen) or were raped before dying. Even Mother Mary got her child without having sex! Can it get any more obvious?

Maybe, just maybe, religions abhor sex not because it is amoral, but because it’s the only way humans can find a little piece of Heaven on Earth…

The Occult

I tend to take a look at the forum over at Big Fish Games to see what’s going on. One of the recent discussions is about occult topics in games and why some people would like to stop Big Fish Games from publishing them.

I know that the occult is a difficult topic for some people. Religious people tend to see everything ‘occult’ (whether it really is occult or not) as pure evil while others merely consider it a fraud.

My own point of view is somewhere in the middle, to be honest.

The bible frowns on magic of any kind (but it also frowns on many other things that are quite normal today), considering the users evil. Mostly, though, it frowns on harmful magic (you could call it ‘black’ magic, too) that is used in order to gain advantages over others or in order to harm others. But I’ve never been very religious, so it’s not my problem whether or not the bible frowns on something. And even if you don’t practice any occult things, there’s no real problem with playing a game with occult themes or reading about them or seeing a movie with such themes.

On the other hand, I have been using tarot cards since my early teens and I’m quite good at it (though I usually see the cards as a way to see a problem from a different angle). I also was able to hypnotize someone some years ago (I haven’t tried it since, I’m not really trained and I don’t want to harm anybody). I have read a lot about parapsychology and know my facts about the most well-known cases of ghosts and haunted places.

What enraged people in the discussions, though, is not the occult as a such. What enraged quite some of those who partook in the discussions is the censorship. And telling someone not to publish something (whether it’s a book, a movie or a game) because it skirts a topic that they are not comfortable with, is censorship. They are not forced to buy or play games with occult ‘seasoning’ (they’re mostly hidden objects games which profit from the dark and spooky). Therefore they shouldn’t try to take such games away from people who have no problem with the topic and still want to play.

If you are faced with media on a topic you don’t like – the occult, Darwinism, Creationism, whatever –, just ignore that media instead of trying to take it from everyone else. That’s censorship and shouldn’t be used too freely.

Beowulf

Last Sunday I had the chance to watch the full-CGI movie “The Legend of Beowulf” on TV (meaning: without paying for it). I’m glad I’ve never actually paid money to see it, to be honest. And no, that’s not because of the CGI-characters, they were done well.

I’m quite well-acquainted with the story of Beowulf. I’ve read the original tale and I’ve seen a host of movies. Most movies don’t take the original tale that serious, but that’s okay. Until Sunday I thought the “Beowulf”-movie with Christopher Lambert was the worst (despite the rather inspired Steampunk setting and the great design for Grendel’s mother). Now I know better.

But where do I start? With the CGI part? No, because there was nothing wrong with it – even though I wondered what they needed famous actors for, others would have done as well. Apart from that, everything was quite well there. Not exactly perfectly realistic models, but we’re speaking about monsters and heroes here, so that’s not a necessity. One thing didn’t work out, though, and that is a major drawback: Grendel.

Stephen King rightfully describes Grendel in “Danse Macabre” (a great book about horror movies and horror novels from the 1950s to the 1980s with a few chapters about the basics of the genre) as a ‘natural born killer’. It’s a predator, a creature that kills humans just as easily as a fox kills a rabbit. The Grendel in this movie looks crippled and isn’t exactly bloodthirsty. It kills the king’s men – but just because they make that much noise. Today it probably would just call the police instead. This Grendel is everything but a natural born killer. It’s something you pity.

The story has been changed, too, making Grendel Hrothgar’s son. But that’s not really the problem. The Lambert version of the story features the same twist, but the monster still is a monster. It also makes the dragon which will kill Beowulf in the end Beowulf’s own son with Grendel’s mother (a tad unrealistic, but in this movie the mother of the monster looks hot). Still, the story takes a few turns that don’t really feature with the hero the original tale presents us.

Yes, Beowulf is, for his time, the ‘perfect’ hero without flaws. But that’s the point in a character like him. He never follows Hrothgar on the throne – he actually has a kingdom of his own to rule. And he kills Grendel’s mother just like her child, after she has avenged her son and killed most of Beowulf’s companions.

But for me, it was the design of Grendel as a crippled something that really ruined the movie. I don’t want to pity the monster which the hero slays.