A not so average woman

Wednesday, October 17, 2007

I'm worried

The day before yesterday I watched a documentary on fundamental Christians in the United States. And what I saw, really, really worried me.

Maybe it's just because I'm German and know quite a lot about the Third Reich and it's leaders. Maybe it's just because I'm not really a firm believer myself (but I just wrote about that topic). But seeing children being used for "Christianity", for the goals of adults who either are slightly deranged themselves or have an ulterior motif they've not shown this far, makes me sick. I'm not a children's person at all, normally I don't care too much about children. But seeing them used, seeing their minds being crippled by adults who should know better, who should learn what the world tolerance means, really gets me angry and sick.

Creationists, anti-abortionists, people who want to wage war on those who do not believe the "right thing," all those people make me sick anyway. But seeing them influence children, before they are old enough to really understand about it, that makes me more than sick, that makes me angry.

That suddenly makes me grateful for the fact that children have to go to a proper school in Germany, that mothers are not allowed to teach their children at home, just because they think the 'average' education is wrong. They may find a private school for their children which is religiously based - but even they are controlled.

Children will, at least until puberty, believe what they are told. They will believe all non-Christian people are bad. They will believe the world was created in six days - plus one day of recess. And for many of them, it will take a lot more years - until they themselves get into a conflict with the strict and intolerant belief of their fundamental religion - before they see that the world isn't that easy in structure. That black and white are not the only colours, that people are not good or bad because of whom they pray to, but because of their hearts, minds and souls.

They become soldiers in "God's Army" (and I find myself thinking of Christopher Walken...). They think it's great to be a martyr - well, that's not what it's often made up to be, after all, you have to be dead before you can become one.

But I'm not angry at the children, they don't know better. I'm angry at the adults who use them. And to me, who has studied history and heard a lot of speeches, made by Hitler and his minions, a lot of the things they tell the children - and of the way they motivate them - look and sound scarily similar.

That scares me, because I look at those children and think 'HJ' ("Hitlerjugend", the youth organisation of the Nazi) or even 'Werwolfkommandos' ("Werewolf Commandos", that was the name of the commandos made up completely of young boys that were sent against the enemy as the last wave during the last weeks of battle in 1945). Maybe I'm over-reacting here, maybe I'm seeing things that aren't there at all, but I'm really, really worried.

Hitler showed what you could make children do: betray their own family, kill people, die for people - and other things. He didn't do it in the name of a god - but does that make it less bad or even worse? In the end he used children in the worst way possible - save for actual physical or sexual abuse.

It's what terrorists do, it's what fundamentalists do. In my book that makes them bad people by default. They can fight all they want - as long as they do it themselves. They can believe all they want - as long as they don't impose their belief on other people. And those who do it in the name of god, they are the worst. And they should read the bible again, especially the New Testament. They've got something fundamentally wrong.

Christianity is a religion, and a strong one. It's one of the five major religions in the world today. One of the others is younger - Islam -, the other three are older. The older ones are past the 'hot phase' already and have settled down a bit, just like older people would. Islam is still a lot 'hotter', but it will settle down, after all, it's six hundred years younger than Christianity. Christians were pretty wild, too, six hundred years ago.

Tolerance should be a high value in the life of every human being, today more than ever before. Because tolerant people recognize and accept that every being is an individual and has its own views and beliefs.

I, for example, strife for tolerance every day. Sometimes I make it, sometimes I don't, but every day I try it. If there is a god (surely not the god the Roman-Catholics or those Christian Fundamentalists believe in, but a god, nevertheless), I hope she'll take that into account, once I die. And if I'm going to be reborn, I hope that will help me not to end up as a cockroach. But above all, I hope that, in this world, I make those I meet feel a bit better, because I try my very best to treat them without prejudice. But honestly: I'd find it hard to treat those female preachers who teach children all those things with tolerance.

Jesus forgave his enemies, even Judas who betrayed him. He stood for peace, tolerance and love. He surely would not like people waging war and teaching intolerance and hatred to children in his name.

Monday, October 15, 2007

Late News Flash

There have been two major discussions in Germany over the last week (though one seems to start over [again], one was already in full swing). One is about Richard Dawkins and his theories of the non-existence of God. The other - very typical for Germany ever since the 70s - is about the German school system. So I have worked out one post each about those topics.

Nothing new from the DVD front, only a scientific book new on my shelf, so there's nothing about those topics coming up right now.

But I've started raising virtual plants, so I'm writing something about that, too.

German School Discussion

The German school system is complicated - and it doesn't work very well, either. For all those of you who have not had first-person experiences with the system, I'll give a short description first, before going over to the discussion that's been going on - with breaks - ever since 1968 or so.

While most other countries - especially those in industrialized areas - have a rather straight school system with only one type of school for all children (though it's quite probable that they're separated into primary and secondary school). Germany does not. We have one type of primary school and three types of secondary school (not accounting for specialized schools to help the learning impaired). Those three types are completely separated from each other, they are in different buildings, have different head-masters (or -mistresses, of course), different teachers. A child that has been sorted into one of those school types will not, under normal circumstances, switch into another school type later on.

After four to six years of primary school (when I went to school, four years were average, but now primary school usually goes up to sixth grade) the children are sorted into the three types of secondary school. They are between eleven and thirteen then. After this time, they hardly stand a chance to switch into another type of school (at least 'upwards', downwards is always possible). Until the end of their school career (after 9 to 13 years of school overall), they are stuck with this school type.

Now, what are those three types? As I'm quite sure there aren't such types in most other countries, I'll keep the German words for them.

"Hauptschule" once was where the largest amount of students went after primary school (therefore, a lot of primary schools still also function as "Hauptschulen"). It lasts for 9 years (including the aforementioned 4 to 6 years of primary school) and is supposed to prepare them for work in lower-paid jobs in companies. The majority of workers comes from this type of school and it's rather practical orientated.

"Realschule" is the newest type of those schools. It was created when office work became far more important during the industrialization. The school lasts 10 years (again including primary school) and brings forth the middle-class of workers in a company (or at least it's supposed to), so there's more place for theory in this type of school.

The "Gymnasium" (and I know that name is confusing to people from English-speaking countries, as 'gymnasium' there means a building for sports - but both words come from the same Greek origins) is the only type of school from which you can go to university (and Germany doesn't know the principle of colleges). It's as old as the "Hauptschule", while the "Realschule" was created quite some time later. "Gymnasium" lasts 12 or 13 years (depending on the state you live in, southern states usually have 13 years, northern states mostly have 12; again the primary school is included in this number). The "Gymnasium" brings forth the scientists, doctors and high-level personnel for companies. Politicians usually went to the "Gymnasium" as well.

So, now that you know the different types of school, about the discussion in Germany. In PISA we didn't exactly fare well. Even though some states (Bavaria above all) scored at least good enough, Germany on the whole was left in a rather bad position.

But long before PISA, during the 70s for the first time, people tried to change the system. The idea of separating the children that early didn't go well with the young parents who were doing their best, not to rise their children like their parents had. The strict school system was not what they wanted.

Every time they tried to change the system, though, they failed. There are a couple of school types in Germany that incorporate what those parents really wanted to create, but the average public school was not changed. This means, parents who cannot afford or don't really want to sent their children to private schools are left with the old school system and its weaknesses.

While other countries, countries with just one type of secondary school, have fared well with PISA and other tests of that time, Germany still holds on to an outdated school system that keeps children too long in school (if they're going to go to university) or doesn't teach them well enough (if they go to the "Hauptschule").

Politicians always excuse the German system, claiming "it gets better" at the moment and will soon be up to par again, competing with the other countries in Europe, with Japan or the United States. Well, they can dream for all they like, but that doesn't make it true.

The main reason they always give for not changing this system, is money. It's too expensive and won't warrant the costs afterwards, they say. But is it really?

I have to admit that I have no idea about the costs of changing a complete school system - although even I can imagine it will take quite some money. But doesn't the outcome (German children being able to really compete with those from other countries) warrant that money, in the long run. Unfortunately, seeing things developing over a long time, isn't really a forte of German politicians. At the moment, it's too expensive from their point of view (and their children go to private schools, anyway).

The German school system needs a serious make-over, but it won't get it, that much is for sure...

German School Discussion

Now, what are those three types? As I'm quite sure there aren't such types in most other countries, I'll keep the German words for them.

The main reason they always give for not changing this system, is money. It's too expensive and won't warrant the costs afterwards, they say. But is it really?

The German school system needs a serious make-over, but it won't get it, that much is for sure...

Does God exist?

That is one of the basic questions of mankind, I think. Religion is an important part of our culture, no matter which religion it is. But does the fact that we believe in a god really mean this god exists? (Warning: this could be quite a philosophical post!)

Richard Dawkins doesn't think it does. That much is obvious from the various interviews I've read. There is no scientific proof of God's existence. (Of course, the point in believing is not needing proof.)

What I sometimes wonder about, is the question whether that really matters.

First of all, I need to point out my own approach to religion. I'm not very religious. I think there might be some kind of divine being around, but I don't believe in the Christian god as a such (although technically I'm Roman-Catholic). I'm not a follower of any church you might find out there. In fact, I'm highly suspicious of people who tell others what to believe. To me, belief is something highly personal and nobody else can tell me what to believe in.

In Europe, that's not very important. Europeans are not judged by other Europeans based on their belief (well, some might do so secretly, but not openly). Fundamental Christians are almost non-existent over here - or at least such a minority that they can't do a thing. Most European countries might be based on Christianity (though various kinds of it), but that doesn't mean they're Christian in the way a Fundamental Christ in the United States might understand it.

But then, what is belief?

Most people believe in some kind of god (or in more than one, that's what's called polytheism). They believe this god (or these gods) has created the universe, has created mankind and - usually - some special plan for us humans. Some religions have the idea of people being reborn again and again to learn about life while others only give us one chance on this world, before we are judged. (Sometimes I wonder what's worse: coming back as a housefly after a very bad life or spending eternity in hell...)

Still, that doesn't answer the main question. What is belief? The question is not how it manifests itself.

Belief is, most of all, thinking something is true without having any proof - and that's why Dawkins will never really convince firm Christians with his book. A true believer doesn't need proof of the things he believes are true. Belief is self-sufficient.

That brings along the next question. What do we need belief for?

Believing in something seems to be a major human survival trait. By believing what the parents tell it, a child can survive. Animals don't need belief, though, because they have more instincts to help them along. But then, maybe believing what older people tell you, is an instinct. We still don't know.

Belief makes it easier to control large quantities of humans. If you can use a group's belief, you can make them do whatever you want. That's what happens in some countries to this very day - and has happened in most others in the past. You just have to say "god wants you to kill those people" or "god wants you to give me all your money" and they will obey. Tyrants have to put in a lot more hard work for the same results...

On the other hand, for children, belief really is an important thing. If a child can't believe its parents when they tell it something, then who could teach it about what to do to survive? If a father tells his child "don't eat this" or "don't touch that", it's usually because those things are dangerous. And as the child believes all he tells it, it will be safe.

So belief is important, but it can be misused easily (and this has happened in the past).

Religion also brings us straight to "the meaning of life," this fundamental question embedded in the human nature. We like to think our life has some kind of meaning. We like to think we're on this globe for a purpose. And, of course, we like to think we're important.

"God has given this world to us" is a basic principle of the Christian belief. We are in charge and can use the world whatever way we like (and just look what we did with it). With this and the idea of Christianity being the "only true" belief, Christians conquered other people, enslaved the populace, took over their country and in addition thought those conquered and enslaved should be grateful for it (but, to be fair, so did the Moslems as well - and various other religious groups). Genghis Khan had a more difficult approach: he just took the country and said "believe what you want, but don't oppose me." Strangely enough, that worked well.

Biologically speaking, the only "meaning of life" for every living creature is to propagate. But that's not enough to keep the human mind entertained, so we need something else to do with our spare time. So we're making our own "meaning of life" and invent reasons why it's true. And belief is a practical way to make others share our idea of the "meaning of life" and help us to make it come true. That might create a paradise or a hell, based on the ideals of the one starting all of it.

And now back to God. Does God exist?

Scientifically: probably not. It has never been proven. Religiously: yes, without a doubt. What would a religion be without God?

And who is right? That's the question nobody can answer.

Virtual Plants

Another chapter in my sometimes ongoing series of "games to play while doing something else." This time "Plant Tycoon":

Actually, in some ways "Plant Tycoon" is not a 'normal' game. I like searching games and I like some arcade games. This game falls in none of those categories.

It's a bit like a simulation. You start out with a 8 seeds (not necessarily all from different plants) and four potted seedlings. From those you can build up your very own catalogue of plants, cross-pollinating plants in order to create new ones. In order to obtain supplies (like better soil or water, more space for your seeds, plant foot, insect poison and so on), you can sell grown plants (after you've harvested new seeds or without even pollinating them) in your nursery. They sell for different prices, some are quite cheap while others are quite expensive. On the whole, most expensive plants require better soil to grow, so you have to earn money in order to advance. (Currently I'm saving for the best possible soil.) In addition you can catch bugs that will come to see your plants (everything from beetles over spiders and butterflies right up to dragonflies).

Plants have a growing cycle that will advance even while the game is not running (unless you pause the game before quitting), looking like this:

At fastest speed, a plant requires about 50 minutes to mature, this way you can rise one charge of 15 plants for selling in a little under an hour - depending on what plants you rise, it's quite a fortune you have in your greenhouse.

By default, a game in which you have to wait that long before doing something is a perfect game to keep running while doing something else. (I'm currently waiting for some plants to grow, produce seeds and get sold while writing this.) Nevertheless, you shouldn't leave the game alone for too long, as plants can catch diseases and need treatment then, otherwise they die - and dead plants don't sell well, as you can imagine.

I like experimenting with the plants, too, by cross-pollinating them. This way you can create over 500 different plants (or so the in-game help says) and find 6 special magical plants (I've found one so far). Well, I've got about 2000$ to earn before I can buy the best possible soil - and I already have 3 types of seeds that will only grow in this (I used very expensive medicine to get one of those plants each through growing and producing seeds). I'm also planning on cross-pollinating some more plants - the basics are already growing, I keep two seeds of each plant I've found in my seed-box, so I can grow them again whenever I want. Those I self-pollinate to get more seeds and those seeds I replant and sell (or use for experiments).

Well, I will go back to planting and pruning and pollinating now...

Saturday, October 13, 2007

Offline on purpose

Today most people are proud about being 'online' all the time. I'm not. Quite some time during the day I'm 'offline' on purpose.

I do have a flat-rate, so I could be online 24/7, but I'm not. I do have a cell phone and could keep it on 24/7, but I don't. I make a point in only plugging in my router when I want to go online - that way nobody can use it to surf for nothing. And I also make a point in only turning on my cell phone when I need it. I do have a normal phone and everybody who could want to contact me, either has or can find my number. The cell phone is merely used when I'm on the move (or at work).

That might sound simple to you, but from what I see around me, it's pure luxury. (And, strangely enough, even cheap luxury, as my cell phone and router need less energy and I do use less short messages and make less calls from the cell.) Most people feel as if they're missing something by not being 'online' (or rather: reachable) all the time. They worry about being left out of the loop. I don't. Emails can wait. Whoever really wants to reach me, can do so by using my normal phone number (and try the cell when I can't be reached at home, though I do not necessarily have it one when I'm gone). I answer my emails when I've got the time. I take phone calls when they come - but I reserve the right not to take a call when I'm busy and don't know the number. I do have an answering machine people can use at their leisure.

I control my communication, you could say. I decide how many ways I leave to people to reach me. I'm not succumbing to the pressure of people always being able to reach me. Why should I? I'm not a political leader, I'm not head of a company, I'm not a doctor. People do not need to reach me 24/7.

I'm not online permanently, because I do have an offline-life! And I like it that way!