Porn and Politics.

This post consists of a satire that I wrote for an assignment in my English class. It's not extremely polished, and I would like to expand some of the ideas I introduce within it more, but for now I feel it post-worthy. I think that my actual ideological bias is pretty obvious, but I hope that doesn't detract from the underlying message. Oh yeah, and all the names used within=Porn stars. Enjoy:

AMERICA SPEAKS: PARTY TIME!
By: Jenna Haze .1/4/10

After a long, drawn out political feud last year during the election, one question lingered over the head of America: are the political parties responsible for aiding this battle worth it? And by it, America meant the many side effects caused by the existence of two major rivaling groups funded by the government. Naturally, the only way to find this answer was to ask the person asking it, so we here at European in These Waters News have ventured out and interviewed America him/her/itself.

After long, failed attempts to ask America’s actual substance, who decided to continue die from pollution, gradually lessen to the point where natural resources would be gone, and generally serve as exploited tools for advanced primates rather than answer out questions, the people of America were instead asked.

Naturally, the interviewed persons were primarily those who were heavily involved in political party activity, because they would know the most about the actual going-ons and benefits of parties. Jeremy Steel, a self-proclaimed “Hardcore Republican” was among the first to give a small amount of insight into political parties’ benefits. “Well, I think we be good at uniting to give those hippy-faggots a fuckin’ what-fur” said Steel, glued to his TV screen illuminated by FOX news. “They tryin’ to take away my right to smoke in public, invading my personal liberties and such, and I’ll be a damn fool if that’s what America stands for. Fuck this Socialist Commie Shit.”

Obviously, political parties are indeed necessary to preserve the true spirit of America, which is to allow numerous people to commit a slow suicide while spreading cancer to others. Plus, who wouldn’t agree that “hippy-faggots” deserve a “what-fur?”

Not thoroughly convinced, however, we asked Steel’s neighbor/cousin/sister/ex-wife Ricky White to explain her devotion to the Republican Party. After locating her at the local pond dumping her used oil, White explained “it juss makes me feel right, and makes them other people wrong. My party’s best function is to show the world who’s good and who’s evil.”

This response offered more insight into how valuable political parties are, as they reveal all of who is good and who is evil in the world. They turn life into an action flick, with a battle between the two sides really ending with what could be relief for the world or utter chaos. America needs to be divided along these lines, because the people as a whole would be a good-evil mix that may balance out for the better, and there needs to be one perfect race instead. Quite obviously this sentiment was shared by the Nazi party as well, though we could not contact a member for an interview to confirm this assertion.

After the enlightening information received from these two fine citizens, our searches were turned towards the Democratic Party. After the last bit of information we gathered, every precaution was taken so that we would not to be swayed by the evil views of this festering mass of negativity, and proceeded to find a few of these vile beings. Easily identifiable by the sign commonly referred to as a peace sign, the first of the Democrats we found was Ms. Sasha Grey, a 20-something woman who was very assertive about her party beliefs, even though we informed her they were in fact evil. “What do you mean, evil?” she shouted when we told her, “I only believe that what I do is for the betterment of everyone. The people that don’t like it can go screw themselves.”

Evil or not, this stance was interesting. A party, undoubtedly pitted against the other, was trying to do something good for everyone? This was an obvious falsity, as it is common knowledge that to make something better for a group of people, all in that group must be consulted. This party, with their pseudo-loving ways was trying to force their ideas on America, and that must be evil.

Peter North was the other Democrat who we subjected to questioning. We had seen his movies, and finding him on the streets was pure luck. When asked about his orientation, North was quick to admit that he was a Democrat, once again surprising us about how open evildoers were about their plans. “I think that my party is the only way to get a lot of things done. We need to squash the evil, oppressive Republican Party that was to prohibit our rights, like a woman’s right to a partial-birth abortion.”

This comment shocked us once more. Everything that we had learned had been flipped around: the Republicans were evil? The two sides did seem to agree that killing something in some way, shape, or form was an inalienable right, though they did not agree on which method was the best. The parties still separated the good from the evil, but after the unfaltering word of Peter North, which side was which seemed less clear than before. Either way, this division was a positive step in the advancement of America.

For good measure, we asked an independent what they thought about the two major political parties. However, as no one cares about the opinion of those who are neither good nor evil, we lost the interview information from this session and will summarize it with this statement: “Political parties are a deterrent to America’s well-being, and are simply the equivalent of the political machines found in America’s past. Both parties are just modern day forms of Boss Tweed and Tammany Hall.” However, this statement seems to be very ambiguous and less to the point than our other interviewees. What the reference to the Duke Of Hazard does (Boss Hog, idiot), we aren’t quite sure.

Ultimately, parties were found to be quite worth the struggle. They presented a war of good and evil that was fostering America’s growth by…doing something. The battle raged on, and although it is not clear which side is which, it is clear that the United States of America are divided. Political parties are thus a necessary establishment, just like college parties: they show the world what really matters, which is misspelled texts, screaming phone calls, half-reasoned fights, and a whole score of other things that people would not do unless intoxicated, be it from power or alcohol.

Abrasive Beginnings

So, after hesitating to get a blogspot forever, I finally received the tiny bit of motivation it turned out needed to be given for me to actually get one. Instead of an awkward first post (which I can assure this would be) consisting of me rambling about something, I'm going to post a 7 page paper I just finished for English, the topic being the negative effects of many organized religions. I know it's imperfect: I just finished, and this is the rough draft I'm turning in. I'll discuss cloudy points or whatever is needed, this just seemed an approriate medium to post this on and recieve constructive criticism. (oh, and forgive the crusades part. It was required and I didn't have the time to research enough and be thorough on the topic).
EDIT: I have now uploaded the final version. While certainly still not perfect, as Nathan's six comments and my own reading have been my only means of editing, it is still better. Fixed a few stupid mistakes. And while I simplify the "Jihad" situation for this paper's purposes, I'd still enjoy writing about my true beliefs on that sometime...

Religion: Salvation or Damnation?

A small child sits in a church. Every Sunday he is brought to this “sacred” place and instructed on the values deemed “righteous” and “pure.” These values, while supposedly just in nature, have been known throughout history to be interpreted in ways that have caused destruction and division of the human kind. While religions may preach just values and have the purest of intentions, they have throughout history bred division and hatred unrivaled by any other institution. Be it the numerous wars stemming from an overly-passionate belief or the condescension of groups of people merely for having different ideas, many religions affect the world in ways far detached from the peace they call for.

Historically, many wars and attacks have been executed in the name of religion. Perhaps the best example are the Crusades that lasted from 1095-1291. In this series of wars, both the Christians and their opposition were motivated by faith, essentially stemming a war out of uncertainty. Both sides had such deep confidence in their doctrines, their systems that could not be proven beyond a doubt, that they felt no remorse attacking others they found as possible interferences. The first call to arms of the Crusades, as delivered by Robert the Monk, went so far as to call people inhabiting Jerusalem “heathens” for “not know[ing] God” (Bartlett 26-28). This kind of religious intolerance led to a very militant nature of early political and religious leaders, a direct cause of wars and many deaths in early times.

It was not just the majority religion of Christianity that had that pugnacious nature, however, as an opponent in one of the crusades, being Muhammad and his followers, were equally as violent in their beliefs. As soon as Muhammad introduced the ideals of Islam, he was forced to flee from major cities due to lack of tolerance for his newfound faith. Muhammad’s followers also fled, and were willing to fight for their faith (Bartlett 19). To a casual onlooker well versed in logic, this may just be the definition of insane; many people, Christians and Muslims alike, were ready to fight for their faith, and in the Muslim’s case, it was a mere fledgling ideal. That leap from logical to illogical, being certain in an ideal inevitably uncertain, had vast consequences, leading to a war and the death of many. Whether or not these deaths were in vain is uncertain, as no one knows whether or not any beliefs are correct until their inevitable end comes. While some may claim the religious struggles, be it for Christianity, Islam, or any other religion, supersede any logical boundaries the human mind is capable of perceiving, others will assert that those willing to fight and die for something such as this are illogical, gullible, and ultimately moronic. This example ultimately seems as if there are two children arguing over something their respective “mommy” told them, without the ability to think that perchance their mother is wrong, or that it is okay for others to think differently than themselves.

Sadly, this kind of religious dogmatism is not absent from present day affairs. Most people, whether extremely well-informed or not, are aware of the supposed “jihad” that radical Islamic terrorists have proclaimed on America. While not on the scale of the early Crusades (it’s hard to remember, but we are supposedly fighting for democracy at this point, not against religious terrorists), this kind of religious intolerance is just as potent physically as it was a thousand years ago. If not proven by the barbaric style of some of these terrorists, willing to, quite frankly, blow themselves up for their God, logic still seems to be marked absent on the attendance list of some religions. Admittedly, tolerance and reason are much more widespread than before, especially in Christianity, but the ever present threat of the illogical nature of faith has not dwindled at all. With many military leaders relying strongly on religion for guidance, the world is only left to wonder how much better off we may be if some of the most influential people in the world didn't believe their subjects were going to a heaven when they died.

As shown to an extent by religious warfare, be it intentional or not, religion has undoubtedly bred division between believers and those considered not to be on the right path. Be it different religions clashing or the simple dissent of non-believers, many groups assert an absolute set of ideals, thus creating factions fatal to human unity. The sets of ideals imposed by religions go so far as to dictate what is right or wrong in a person's life, all for the purpose of salvation when the life is finished. This kind of teaching ultimately applies itself to all of one's life, a primary goal for most religious teachings. However, with many of the morals imposed by different religions either contradicting another's beliefs or appearing illogical to the non-religious group, a division is clearly made. The morals themselves may be the root of the problem, but the key factor is the lack of tolerance for other sets of beliefs. With human nature being what it is and the gravitas attached to the situation (eternity...kind of a big deal), many seem completely certain that their system of beliefs is the right path, and undoubtedly push for others to accept their ways of thought. In this sense, it is not the actual religions ruining their reputation, but rather, the interpreters and their actions (Gray). After all, what power or truth does a religion have without followers? The believers are ultimately the living incarnation of the religion, whether they are faithful to the doctrines they supposedly follow or not.

A prime example of this hypocrisy comes with the present day ramblings of "God and country" by many Americans. This phrase asserts the idea that religion and country are the most important things in life, and all worth fighting for. Although Jesus preached total unity and acceptance, this statement combines that message with reasoning fostering personal interest, a mentality saying it is merely better to take care of your own than the whole world (Religulous). After this initial contradiction, other morals and values found in the Christian faith are imposed upon the country, henceforth alienating those who do not follow the same set of beliefs. As relatively recent proof of this situation, George Bush Sr. can be quoted as saying "I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." Thus, opposing factions are created, being those that favor religious involvement in politics and those that do not, and division is given a sturdy and comfortable new abode.

Many types of division can be drawn directly from religious text or teachings. Be it Saint Paul saying "Man was not created for the sake of woman, but woman for the sake of man," Hindu Goddesses being used to portray women's "evil nature," or Confucianism teaching that men are at the top of the social hierarchy, misogyny, being hatred or condescension of women, seems to grow directly from traditional religious teachings (Hill). This kind of mindset has obviously had a major impact throughout history, as evidenced by the need for a women's civil rights movement to be enacted. Still today, there is a superiority complex within many males in regards to women and many misogynistic stereotypes, providing evidence of an outdated mindset that is still very hesitant to vanish.

Women are not the only group oppressed by religious means: slaves and interracial couples faced serious religious opposition to their freedoms, and presently the gay community is entwined in a similar struggle. Some organizations such as the Westboro Baptist Church, while not a typical example, take this kind of oppression and turn it into a colorful, hateful display. With their bright signs and website proudly proclaiming "God Hates Fags," the so called church is a strong opposition to the advancement of homosexual rights, among other things. And although this may only be the epitome of examples for this kind of division, other religious organizations take the same stance in a slightly less volatile form. For an institution that claims to have a monopoly on love and acceptance, it seems odd that the church commonly provides major opposition to minority group's liberties.

After the divisions created by religion are exposed, many cases can be made for Religion being the death of, or at least a strong adversary to, logic. The fact that many see one man hearing everyone whispering at the same time more logical than something such as Santa Clause flying around the whole world in one night is a perfect, if slightly harsh example of the weathering away of good, reasoned thinking (Religulous). The core logic question is not very hard to imagine: Why do people believe what they believe? While many may respond "because it's the truth," there is certainly a deeper level of thinking bringing the mind to that conclusion. Perhaps it is the fact that the Church told the people that they sinned and would be punished, unless they found a cure, which, ironically, only the church has. In essence it seems like a merchant cutting you in order to sell a band-aid, but nevertheless draws endless support. As Friedrich Nietzsche mused, many Christians act as if they are "a slave who has undeservedly been pardoned or promoted" (Nietzsche 47). This kind of mindset leads believers to sacrifice freedom and confidence in themselves, and even mutilate their personality in order to adhere to the doctrine that so graciously saved them from the crime they unknowingly committed (Nietzsche 46).

Rather than the tolerant, philosophical nature found in early Christianity, today's institutions rely more on obedience and adherence, losing the original thoughtful nature to a more simple, restrictive belief, allowing followers to cling to faith to supersede reason. This applies as well to many other religions, with many followers never questioning the legitimacy of their moral code. Tenants that, to a strictly logical thinker, would be dismissed instantly, are whole heartedly embraced. Be it the extremist views of Islam allowing the killing of "infidels," the scientologist belief that there are "thetans" in your body that need to be removed, the Christian belief that many were raised from the dead, or multiple Mormon beliefs including the idea that the darker skinned you are the more evil you have inside of you, some beliefs border on ridiculous (Religulous). While each point cannot be disproven, for if the religion is correct obviously the tenants are as well, it is amazing that there is as little ambivalence towards some of the ideas as there is. There are otherwise perfectly reasonable people believing in some of these things in the name of a higher power which cannot be seen or clearly communicate, as men have always been used as the medium. So, while the possibility that the ideas of religion truly do supersede logic is not possible to disprove, it is, in the light of logic, left with the burden of proof, and thus far has no definitive evidence of credibility.

Despite all this, there is a very strong case to be made in religion's favor. As Larry Gray states in his essay, "To Bind Again," religion is not the completely destructive force it may be portrayed as. After all, the institution does unify certain groups of people, and instills a certain level of moral turpitude in many. Many are also given a sense of security with their religious beliefs, for the simple idea that something comes after life is much more comforting than believing in nothing. Gray compares religious institutions to the act of sexual intercourse: both have a pure nature, but have merely been exploited to be either oppressive or excessively vulgar, respectively. The difference between the two, however, is that while sex is a necessary function of life, religion merely provides comfort to the mind. While believers may say that religion is essential to life after death, the validity of that even existing is up for debate, and non-believers seem to be having no problem existing in life as we know it. Ultimately, the amount of positive influence caused by religion is up to interpretation by the individual; either unity among the few or a struggle for universal unity, no matter how impossible the odds seem; peace of mind with faith or peace with logic remaining uncertain; or substantial moral teachings from institutions rather than individual decisions and experiences.

So while one can never be certain about the actual truth in any religion posed today, it can be proven that many have had detrimental effects on situations presented throughout history, and contradict much of logic as we understand it. While religion may teach some good values, it is questionable whether or not that aspect redeems the other, more negative factors associated with it. Ultimately many problems could be solved, or at least slightly amended, with an influx of tolerance unto the world. Only when the dogmatism stemming from religion is set aside and acceptance is established in its place will true salvation be accomplished, bringing into the world the peace and love desired by so many religions in the first place.

-Stephen Mooneyhan