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).

End of the World

Today the world was supposed to end, but as I check through my window, it still seems to be outside. So … no end of the world today?

I’m not really surprised at this and I didn’t believe it, either. I rather think that one of these days mankind is going to eradicate itself. But then, I’m not a fundamentalist Christian … most people probably would hardly call me a Christian at all. I simply don’t do the apocalypse, not that way … sorry.

But, and that’s what’s really bugging me, why do people try to determine when the end of the world will be? Why do they pull random numbers from the bible (or God knows where…), throw them together and then claim “the world will end at the 21st of May 2011”? It’s not going to happen, not because some guy who’s probably founded his own religion to make some serious money says it will. The dates claimed by prophets of the apocalypse probably are the safest – whenever mankind’s existence will end, those days surely are not being ‘that’ day.

The Mayan Calendar ends in 2012? Has anyone ever considered they just ran out of space and thought ‘man, it’s ages till that year, we’re going to make new ones a few years before the old ones run out’? This, of course, would definitely show they could not predict the end of their world … they didn’t make it to the year 2012.

Nostradamus wrote strange texts that could be interpreted as some kind of prophecies? Nostradamus dabbled in Alchemy, chances are he got a few good doses of drugs and poisons. Relying on his hard-to-interpret texts (written in verse and very ancient French) is about as sensible as relying on what that guy next door says when he’s stoned.

A guy wrote down a vision of the end of the world years after the rest of the bible was composed? I have had a good look at that book and it made me wonder what exactly that guy was consuming when he wrote his vision down. That surely was some serious stuff.

I probably could go on and on and on, there’s loads of that stuff. Aside from conspiracy theories, prophecies of the end of the world are probably the biggest part of all ‘doubtful’ contents of the internet (pending porn, of course, but porn isn’t exactly doubtful content). Then there’s alien astronauts visiting earth at the time of the cave men and such stuff, but quite a lot of that falls under ‘conspiracy’, provided you allow for a wide interpretation for the word ‘conspiracy’.

Which serious error was build-in when mankind evolved? Why are we so set on determining the end of our existence? It will happen when it happens, no matter what we do beforehand.

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…

Taking games too serious

For quite some time now I’ve been a regular visitor to the forum over at Big Fish Games. I browse through the forum, discuss a bit, help out with other gamers’ questions…

But one thing surprises and agers me every time I meet it: gamers who either think games should not have any supernatural or occult themes or they should not give a gamer any possibly not-completely-moral choices.

The newest of this threads belongs to a vampire-themed game (thankfully without any sparkling vampires) named “Blood Oath”. In the second half of the game, you are presented with a choice: Feed from a vampire hunter who has made your un-life miserable before or do not feed. While it is suggested that you will die when you don’t feed, this isn’t true. You will be saved and still can continue in the game. Still, it obviously is a tough decision – if you take the game too serious.

I never take possibly dying or killing in a game too serious. I’ve played ego-shooters (quite some of them and those quite a lot) when I was younger (I rarely do so these days). I’ve played GTA (though not part four, because up until quite recently my computer wasn’t up to it and it doesn’t run well on ATI graphics cards). I played the infamous great white in the “Jaws Unleashed” game (and it was fun). On the other hand, I never managed to go down the path of the dark side in “Jedi Knight”. I usually end up as a risk-taking close-combat quarter in RPGs. But whether or not I’m doing good (or bad) deeds in a game doesn’t affect my actions in the real world. I rarely drive faster than speed limit (and never much faster). I’m polite to people. I get up and offer my seat to elder people or those who need it more than me in public transport. I lead a good life – well, as good as you can be without being a saint.

But I draw the line between what I do in real life and what I do in a digital world. A game can be reloaded, you can play it again, make different choices and see where that leads you. In fact, to me that’s part of the fun in such games. I like games with dark themes, too. I like spooky and dark stories and games that run along the same lines are far more interesting to me than, say, a bright game with a woman in love looking for the man she loves (and that’s, basically, the second category in which hidden objects games mostly fall). (The “Dream Day” series is the only exception from this rule for me.)

But I don’t tell other people their choice in games is wrong. Everybody has a different taste and not everyone likes what I like (which is probably a very good thing). It gets on my nerves, though, when other people try to do that to me.

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.