A Boastful Confession

Lately this thing has been going around known as Amendment One. For those of you who may not know, Amendment One legally prevents same-sex marriages, among other things. Mostly I've seen those in the LGBT community's favor, but today I took a super-long walk - not incredibly far, considering my walks in general, but for several hours. Near the end of said excursion I passed three neighboring churches, two of which had signs that read: "Vote FOR Amendment One! ... One man. One woman..." and something about "proper" families or "true" families or some such bull-crap. I don't remember, because it wasn't worth remembering. Bigoted slime. The reason I care about the signs themselves is that people these days tend not to think before they do or say things. The average person, I am afraid, will read it (provided said human can actually read) and say, "Hey, it says that so it must be true!" and cast a ballot. Scary.

I heard somewhere that about fifty-five percent of people in North Carolina (where I currently reside) are in favor of Amendment One, which makes me want to shoot someone. Are you people so thick as to never learn? Allow me to list my cases:

• The Salem witch trials
• The Red Scare
• The Holocaust
• African-American slavery
• Black/white segregation
• Patriarchy throughout all history
• Medieval witch hunts
• Plebeians and Patricians in Rome
• Modern Communist China
• The British vs. the Colonists

Do I need to say more there? That's why it makes me sick whenever women, blacks, Jews, or anyone else who would have suffered unfairness in the past insist on being homophobic. I'm not saying it's OK for straight, white cis-males to be prejudiced, but when the former are I think it just makes them hypocritical.

So. My boastful confession.

I vandalized the first sign by writing "BIGOTS" with a black Sharpie but then decided to rip the damn thing off its post altogether and throw it in a Dumpster later on. I did the same with both signs, ripping one of them apart with a small Swiss army knife. And I regret nothing. Je ne regrette rien! I do respect others' right to opinion, free speech and such, but this would influence people to vote for something I consider to be unethical. If I posted signs all over District of Columbia with the words "Burn the White House tonight! Kill its occupants!" I would not get away with "freedom of expression" because I would be posing a threat to others. (Don't worry, I'm not a murderer and besides, I like President Obama. It was an example, nothing more.) In my opinion, this was an attack on gays and an obstacle to their right to marry and while my actions were likely trivial, I feel great about them. That's right. Begging your pardon now, for I am about to say something crude: Homophobics have their heads up their asses, simple as that.

This is Lewis Winter, signing out.

A Pawn of God vs. A God of Pawns

The latter part of the title refers mostly to my fictional characters: I create them, right? And they cannot fathom me unless I will it? - In which case, I'd better have a damn good reason.

I think I've personally broken the record for images in one post. But believe it or not, I was not thinking of "graven images" until after. Of course I'm not taking them down. And now, the reason for this post: a semi-imaginary conversation between myself and a religious nut. I am not attempting to portray any generalization of one group; I merely mean to point out the flaws in certain areas of religious reasoning and logic.

*******

NUT. Do you believe in God?

ME. Not sure. I don't think there is sufficient evidence.

NUT. He does not live on evidence, but on faith! Who do you think created you??

ME. My...parents?

NUT. Well, who created them?

ME. Their parents? It's a chicken-and-egg question.

NUT. So you just admitted that you don't know!

ME. I did not! There was no need to admit something I wasn't hiding. I don't know if He, or She, or Whatever, exists. At least I don't pretend to.

NUT (taken aback). How dare you! I know He exists, because He visited me in a dream! *1

ME. I suppose, by that line of reasoning, that a three-headed green cow exists?

NUT. Of course not.

ME. But I saw Her in a dream! I could swear up and down until the cows come home, no pun intended, yet still there's no reason for me to believe you.

NUT. Gahh, you will burn in Hell!

ME. If there is such a place, do open the door for me when I join you.

My personal theory is that, while there may be some sort of higher being, perhaps of time or a separate spatial dimension, or even a writer (I couldn't know if I was fictional) - but some of these claims are utter bogus. For example, according to the Law of Conservation of Mass, nothing can simply vanish from all of existence, or be newly created for that matter. There are so many quarks, atoms, etc. in our universe, particles, which at one point - (billions?) of years ago - formed amino acids and eventually led to simple life. I just combined memories from my past two science classes. Hooray for memory! Also, I think that either to explain or comfort, people create myths and such. Explanation includes Zeus of lightning and comfort implies scenes such as a loved one's deathbed. "You'll go to Heaven and see [another loved one]!" - which is a bit more socially acceptable than "You'll be turned to ashes and spread" or "You'll rot in the earth until your cold, unfeeling bones wither away through the centuries." Personally I wouldn't mind that, although I'll probably be cremated. People create deities in terror, pray "just in case" in an emergency but never otherwise, etc.

Again, I have many friends of many religions, so I'm not knocking any beliefs; rather, I am questioning the foundations of faith and knocking those who attempt to push their doctrines down others' throats.

I do believe in doing good things for others, and I don't have to worship anyone/-thing to do so.

*1 - I never had any such dream, but it served its purpose, I hope.

And now for something completely different: A post about censorship

I tend not to curse a whole lot. That's partly because I don't feel the need to often, and also, as much as I love arguing, sometimes disputes are best left not started by parents of children in public places, etc., by letting loose a toe-stubbing stream. And profanity's only a part of it; I think nudity, violence, scary stuff, and whatever else needn't be so taboo. Or Macbeth, for that matter, but that's a different story - I think. Now I'm fairly certain I've never used the word "fuck" on this blog before. I don't have a filter for mature content, nor will I consent to one for this post. I understand why parents don't want their kids to drink or smoke. Those are actually bad for them.

But what to do if one's child says something naughty? I'm going to pretend I am in my thirties or forties. I'm a full-time writer living in a flat in East Sussex when my six-year-old daughter (Callista Xylia [Winter] is a good name) walks into my study as I am pounding out an important piece of writing.

HER. Lewis?

ME. Yes, dear?

HER. What does fuck mean?

- THE AVERAGE PARENT. Don't you ever say that again! Go to your room!

- ME. It's a derogatory term used to indicate sexual acts, which can function as a noun ("that old fuck," for example) or more commonly a verb ("go fuck yourself!" - a base thing to say, but it is commonly used where I'm from). It may also take on the meaning of something gone wrong, for example, "He's a fuckup." You might not want to say fuck around the common public, but I don't personally mind your saying it in the house. So what do you want for lunch?

The odd thing is, "superiors" of age who scold young ones for cursing often have dirtier vocabulary themselves. And if you noticed my theoretical child calling me by my first name, real or not, it's because I don't find it even remotely disrespectful in any way. Now, another mini-script:

ADULT. Shit! What the hell did you do this time?

CHILD. Oh crap....

[ADULT freaks out over the kid saying "crap"]

The enormity of this hypocrisy astounds me. Also, if kids are going to hear words in real life, what's the point in shielding them from the media? As I understand it, a modern movie can have one F-bomb, sometimes two, and more than that will get it an "R" rating. I understand that intense violence or terror might disturb some people. Still. I could handle most anything on the big screen when I was thirteen or fourteen, but the age remains seventeen, with the exception of bringing a guardian.

When it comes to nudity, I'm iffy. My French teacher from last semester said that in France, nudes are sometimes featured on billboards or in shop windows. Not pornography, of course, just humans in their natural form. I'm fine with that, and the main reasons I think people ought to wear clothing still are cold weather, fashion (there is an art to attire, I think), and to prevent (really, lessen) those lusty weirdos we have so many of today. I'm not saying these things to be perverse; I just don't think there's initially anything wrong with any creature at its purest form. In English III, we read a Mark Twain essay titled "The Lowest Animal," in which he described humans' need to cover themselves up in shame or shyness (hey, I wore a swim shirt for years due to shyness, so I'm not attacking those people), but again, I think with the creeps we have in the modern world, clothing is best.

Drugs and alcohol I'm fine with in media as long as they aren't encouraged. I alluded to this earlier in saying that they stunt growth and cause other medical problems in reality if consumed or otherwise used. But if someone under twenty-one hollers out a swearword, it doesn't make one arm shorter or impair senses. They're just words. The only words I mind (and nearly never say) are terms of bigotry and prejudice. You know, like "nigger" or "faggot," etc. And I don't say them here to use them - I think if treated carefully, like an unstable mineral, they can be regarded for their meanings. In the same English III class, we watched a video about Huck Finn in which a literature professor named David Bradley (known to us a Black Santa - that was one impressive beard!) said he didn't think the uses of N. ought to be censored in Mr. Twain's novel; they were very well contextual, as it took place during the era of American slavery in the nineteenth century.

All in all, I think some censorship is appropriate, but one mustn't try to hide reality from one's offspring. I've been up literally all night. It is presently four-fifteen in the morning here, which means I have school in about three hours. My previous post, the one about Redwall, was written shortly before this one. I'm on a roll, what, what? Anyhow, I'd better wrap this one up. Hope I didn't offend anyone, but if I did, what was the point of this post, huh?

Love to all,

Lewis Winter