Saturday, November 22, 2008

Anyone still follow the Greek pantheon? Maybe we should take a hint from that...

I hate religion.

Sure, I definitely understand that it was created thousands of years ago by ancient societies trying to find a way to explain the inexplicable wonders of the cosmos. Although of course people are going to disagree with me on this, as the bible goes on and on in excruciatingly dull fashion about faith and belief and the will of God, etc. Whether an invention of man or of "God", religion is imbecilic and a poison to society.

Hear me out. Let's say there actually is a God, for argument's sake we'll call him the Christian God, since Chrisitianity is what prompted this post. This God is supposed to be good, kind, blah blah blah, and we are all supposed to live our lives the best we can so that we can achieve eternal salvation. Disregarding those ridiculous Calvinist theories about only like five thousand people being destined for heaven, this seems like a fairly sound principle to live life on. Treat your fellow humans well, and you'll be rewarded. Nice. If there is a God, that's definitely what he would want.

Then you take the simplest subject in the world: gay marriage. Simple? Ha! The world would disagree, it seems, because as far as I can tell the sole purpose of religion is to deny people the right to happiness. Okay, you've got two men who love each other. They don't engage in displays of public affection, they don't dress horrendously flamboyantly, they aren't any threat at all to Christian society because they aren't even on the radar. Since marriage is NOT a Christian invention - sorry, it's not, it's been around for thousands of years, get over it - they should care absolutely zilch as to whether it's a man and woman or a same-sex couple getting married. Except, oh wait! They do!

Religion, you see, is all about control. The Roman Catholic church used to reign supreme in Europe - remember the Middle Ages? Might as well call them the Catholic ages, because that's what they were. The church was all powerful in Europe, the people were oppressed, corruption was rampant, it was just a horrible place to be. I would know, I'm a history major. But when people started to -gasp!- think, things took a turn for the worst. Why are we giving all our time and money to the church, they said, when most of their beliefs are antiquated and nonsensical, the vast majority of them contradict the other, and myriad other reasons I can't even begin to imagine. Thus Protestantism - still religion, sadly, but at least a step in the right direction - was formed, although now if you look at the bible belt in the States, it's kind of a pity that they ever broke off in the first place. At least the 16th C Catholics weren't brainless rednecks.

Okay, I'm generalizing, and I know that. But... seriously, Adam and Eve? You really think that a rational, civilized person can believe that women in general are the source of all the evils that befall us? Propaganda, people! If you make the women think they're inferior to men, of course they're going to believe it. But, wait a minute, we're both members of the human race, so wtf mankind? Forgive the vulgarity, superiority complexes irritate me nearly as much as football and those stupid "ug" boots or whatever they're called. Oh, and fat-people-rights societies. For the overweight people who are medically incapable of being the proper weight, fine. For all those idiots who live off McDonalds and cry that society is opressing them, get a life. Or better, get a treadmill.

What was I talking about again? Right, religion. Gay marriage. Okay, I don't remember the name off-hand, but like ten years ago there was a young, gay man who was beaten and killed by two straight men just for being gay. At his funeral? Christian protestors with signs that essentially stated the man deserved to die for being homosexual. Yeah, well, you deserve to die for being emotionless bastards who elect morons like George Bush. Seriously, if Barack Obama hadn't won that election, I would... I don't even know. Mass genocide of every person who voted against him comes to mind, but that's probably illegal, and I like to think that they just suffered from temporary insanity.

Okay, enough with the terrorist ramblings. I really do like humanity, on the whole. But... I mean, really? As if you need a reason to hate religion, all you have to do is look at those middle-eastern suicide bombers. I know they're the zealots, the extreme edges of their quite normal religion who, oh yes, make women cover their heads to protect their modesty (I'm sorry, WHAT?), and have like a zillion terrorist groups. I'm not hating on middle-eastern people, I actually have a lot of friends from that part of the world, and they agree entirely with me. Have I mentioned that they're all atheist?

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to believe that there's a god out there somewhere watching over us. Hell, there probably is. But if there really is one, you'd think he'd have the decency to come down and give us a sign once in a while. The Greek gods supposedly did it all the time; the Christian god used to, but now he's randomly M.I.A. and I highly doubt he's coming back anytime soon. So in the meantime we've got to fend for ourselves. Like, isn't it possible for people to be good, upstanding individuals without belonging to semi-insane religious groups?

Somewhere through this rant I think I've hit upon a solution. Yes! A solution! To religion, to human idiocy, to pretty much everything that's wrong with society. I'm starting my own religion - no, as we've established, that implies ignorance and stupidity. Alright, I'm starting my own... checking thesaurus... faction. I like it. I'm calling it the FSP - the Faction for Sane People. We worship not god, but reason and common sense. We believe not in smiting all heretics and non-believers, but accepting the existence of morons in society that must be tolerated, while we gradually work towards their eradication, hopefully by brainwashing, probably by breeding them out or jailing them. Do I sound crazy and quasi-despotic? Oh yeah. Does that make me wrong? Probably, but would a world ruled by intelligent people who care for and protect the rights of their fellow man, who build schools and hospitals rather than weapons, be so bad? I don't think so.

FSP. It'll be a thing. Our first meeting will probably never happen, because no one reads this blog, but I still hope that for all you intelligent, sane people out there who aren't held under the thrall of religion, a better future will be in your grasp someday soon.

Random fact: John Smith was not blonde, nor did he wear shiny blue armor. Pocahontas was eleven when he met her, and her father was deceptive and homicidal.

Wednesday, November 5, 2008

I'm paying $50 for this...?

The Setting: History of International Relations Class
The Players: My professor (known as Mr. X), myself, and approx. 50 classmates

So today I dragged my weary body to my dreadfully dull evening class, ready for three hours of Mr. X's hopelessly mangled attempt at explaining history in the most convoluted manner possible.

Then I get into class, and discover the Obama presidential election speech - you know, the one where he's ridiculously inspirational and you wonder how anyone could even think of voting against him (that wasn't sarcasm). Fair enough, the election was yesterday, and this is a semi-polysci class. 

But by the one-hour-in mark, we're still talking about the American election. Now, I love a good ol' politics chat as much as the next hopelessly dull individual, but I'm here to learn about the HISTORY of INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, not a modern day election, regardless of how interesting it may be. 

What is going to happen to the lesson plan Mr. X had set out for today? Are we doing it next week instead? But that would set us back a week, and there are only so many weeks in a semester. Drop the lesson altogether? But... you can't just leave out a chunk of history, it puts everything out of context (not that there was much to begin with in this class).

You can see the problem I have with this. Now, I'm all for professors shaking things up a bit and trying new things, but seriously, that's only alright for like an hour, tops. I'm sitting on a painfully hard wooden chair, wishing I could be researching my essay (due on Monday, which I've barely started), and Mr. X is babbling on for THREE HOURS about something NOT EVEN RELATED TO THE COURSE.

I suppose I should be listening. I'm sure he has lots of insight to offer on the current state of world politics. But you know what? I have only a passing interest in politics, and I certainly don't want to talk about it in a classroom at 9:30 on a Wednesday evening. Call me irrational, call me a diehard, old-school fanatic, but really, when did lecturing your students on the SUBJECT OF THE COURSE become so radical a concept?

Now Mr. X says "I'd argue that our discussion this week is more important than... our discussion next week". What does that mean for his lesson planning abilities? I genuinely like Mr. X, but really, he needs to learn how to plan his lectures better. And on that note, professors in general need to learn how to make powerpoint presentations. Slides that say:

The American Revolution
- economy
- social issues
- military power

-- are NOT good slides! How the hell are you supposed to take notes from that? Any idiot knows that the economy, military, and society were a part of the American Revolution. Give me names, dates, or something that I can use for the invariably impossible final exam!

All I can say is: learn to teach, professors. We're paying you something obscene like $50 an hour each to fill our minds with knowledge, so fill them already!

Interesting Fact: the first tv show to have a toilet onscreen was Leave it to Beaver.