On religion

First and foremost, I want to say that I have no wish or intention whatsoever to offend anyone out there. I say this because I am broaching a terribly sensitive issue today: religion. If you think you will become offended, read no further.





I do not currently subscribe to any particular religion, but I definitely do not deny the existence of God.


Don't get me wrong; I think religion is a beautiful thing. I know of no religion (occults don't count, obviously) that preaches to its followers to do bad things. If, in fact, horrible things were done in the name of religion, then I maintain that it is because the religion was interpreted wrongly.


I think the ability to believe in God(s) takes a lot of bravery and faith. I mean, take me, for example. I hesitate at "choosing" a God to believe in because I am terrified I'll choose the wrong one and be punished for it in the afterlife. I am staggered by fear. I do not have that blind faith, that bone-deep bravery. Yet.


Giving yourself over to God is rewarding as it grants the believer with a sense of peace, taking away much of the sting of fear and grief. How many have turned to God to heal the wounds of tragedy and death?


Also, the believer will have a sense of certainty: justice is promised. You see, (and I do not say this with any sarcam) all unfairness and tragedy can be undone:
-->those who suffer will get their share of joy and rewards at some point, and if not, they will after death.
-->those who perpetuate evil will be damned--again, if not during their time on earth, then during their time on the other side.


I suspect that perhaps, just perhaps, this was thought up to help us cope with the social/economic/everything-else disparities and lack of justice we see every day. How else would we mere humans deal with such a sense of unfairness? Bitterness, depression, jealousy would consume us, swallow us whole. Not that it doesn't happen anyway, but I think that believing in God makes a difference.



Now here's the real point of discussion. I don't want to choose a religion because it appears to me that religion makes hypocrites of its believers. And if there is one thing I hate, it's hypocrites. So it makes sense that if I can prevent myself from becoming something I hate, I should not prescribe to any one religion until I know for sure I can do justice by it.



You can't even say that the hypocrites don't count as believers because they're "bad people". That would mean that the world is flooded with "bad people". Which I refuse to accept.


Perhaps this happens because the rules set out by religions are just too difficult to follow. Perhaps the expectations are just too high. An if this is the case, then by a short stretch, you could even say that religion breeds hypocrites because you just can't hope to live up to its doctrine--so you just stop trying; you close one eye to your so-called sins; you interpret it so it suits you and your tastes; you do it all and hope that just because you are basically a good person, you will be Forgiven.

If I were to say it harshly, religion sets you up for failure. Few people would be able to live up the the expectations set out, purely because they are human. We are flawed, we are dark and twisted, we have desires that grip us by the throat.

You are a staunch Catholic who goes to Church every weekend and takes part in the church's youth groups; you even (apparently) can speak in tongue, but you suffer from vanity in the excess and you wish all dark-skinned people would just become extinct, the mongrels.

You hypocrite.

You are a Muslim who will not touch dogs or eat anything not declared halal, but oh, you love your wine, and you need to have sex daily with your boyfriend-of-the-moment.

You hypocrite.


You are a Buddhist who burns incense daily, and gives generously to charity; you visit your sick parents often, but you are a gambler who prostitutes his wife to pay his debts.

You hypocrite.

You are a Christian who converted to impress your new Christian boyfriend; you think it's all bull but you tell everyone about your newfound spirituality, about how the Lord brought you back to the fold by giving you your boyfriend. Your boyfriend, on the other hand, is chuffed: it's less of a sin to have pre-marital sex with a fellow Christian than to have pre-marital sex with a heathen.

You hypocrites.

All those scenarios...they're different from being human, making mistakes, and trying to better ourselves, feeling remorse for doing something you shouldn't have. People like the ones I described, they continually live in a state where they make a farce of the belief! When I think of people who flaunt such hypocrisy and indifference in the face something as sacred as religion, it makes me angry, it makes me sick. Don't call yourself a Buddhist, a Muslim, a Catholic, whatever. Don't do it if you happily, conveniently, practise only the aspects you are willing to practise, if you interpret the rules so they suit your lifestyle. Don't sully the belief with your name. Not if you feel no remorse, not if you do not believe you are living in a state you should not be living in, or if you don't think you have done something you should not have.


Maybe religion should just be taken out of the equation altogether. It would definitely be easier to be ourselves. Just wallow in our failings, our prejudices. Just bungle along in life with no restrictions, no judgements, no Judgement Day. But I can't honestly say I think that is going to make things better. That--suggesting that religion should be abandoned--is just my cynical side talking. Because when you think about it, when you look harder and don't get too upset by the hypocrites out there, you find alot of people who are genuine. They do alot of good in their own ways. They believe with their whole heart. And they practise with their whole soul.


But hang on. I'm NOT saying that I think everyone should be conservative if they want to practise religion. Let me get that straight right now. I'm not saying like all Christians need to be bible-thumpers yelling about Judgement Day and jealous gods. I'm just saying that if people want to practise religion, they should be more conscientous. Moderation is great. But moderation isn't spitting on the most fundamental rules and laughing it off.

Oh but there I go, passing judgement where I have no right to pass. I know this: I am biased. My opinions in this matter are purely from my OWN set of morals, from how I separate "human follies" from "hypocrisy". Why is it, for example, that I think a Muslim is merely adapting to a modern world when she eats pork-free food that isn't necessarily declared halal, but I then condemn another if she sleeps around? I have no damned right to think these things, but I do. I am not some paragon of perfection, but I condemn perfect strangers as if I were better than them.

And if it's a cherished friend who is guilty of only being a "part-time practiser", I justify it. I don't sneer at them. I make excuses for them. I become hypocritical myself, with regards to my stance on religion. And that is a major prejudice on my part that has to get fixed.

STOP murdering the language!

It is one thing to play around with language and use it creatively. There is alot to be said about the infinite power of language to subtly and beautifully reflect moods, thoughts, opinions, anything. There is also a lot of pleasure to be had when you tinker around with taken-for-granted things in a language and perk it up. I personally love it when new twists are added, especially when it ends up being funny. Take, for example, this line from an episode of Scrubs:
"Disdain each other? I don't disdain you! On the contrary, I dain you!"

And in a post from Gofugyourself, the writer, when pretending to be Paris Hilton, wrote "But seriously, prison was a total epitome for me, Diary. For one thing, it expanded my vocabulation -- Bitchmaster Nunchucks taught me "epitome" while we were in the yard one day writing poems about homeless people. It means... shoot, I forget."

Then there's when Oprah (I think it was her) coined the very apt term "the Ugly Cry".

And who can forget this classic from 10 Things I Hate About You: "I know you can be overwhelmed, and you can be underwhelmed, but can you ever just be whelmed?"

All gave me heehee moments.

On the other hand, you see things happening around you that point in the direction of speakers' TOTAL IGNORANCE. By GOD I walk around in countries where English is supposedly the national language and there are horrendous errors splattering their accusatory blood all over the place--coming out of people's mouths, written on signboards, in university-level research papers, in magazines (hardcopy and the online versions), even real movie titles (Two Weeks Notice?? People, it's either Two Weeks of Notice, or Two Weeks' Notice. Gaahhh.). It makes me die a little inside. Every time.

This isn't some tirade against people who don't speak English as their first language. Nor is this some snobby holier-than-thou setdown, although I am sure it sounds like one. I just can't STAND it when people who should know better make ignorant ,basic mistakes. And I think this is largely because of TV. People learn a lot of their language from TV now, instead of through reading. And what I've been noticing is that alot of people now tend to write as they speak. So many words which sound the same are written the same as well--people just don't realise that they are different words. For example, "its bigger then me". (Two errors there alone, but I won't deal with the missing apostrophe today as that is another battle altogether.)

There's also this little gem: "In order to illicit a response, ..." I was not sure how to react when I saw this. Bang my head against the wall to distract myself from these waves of disbelief and frustration? Console myself that "at least she/he knows this word in the first place", misused and misunderstood as it was?

People also tend to spell based on what a word sounds like--and we all know how English is not the best language with which to try that stunt. Another very common example: "I will definately do it." Oh. My. GOD.

And the increasingly common "your welcome, it was my pleasure". This one, oh this one, it never fails to get my hackles up. This is basic knowledge, and yet!! Let me tear my hair out, please. I am too choked up with negative emotion to decribe the angst burning through my veins.

I'll have you know that all the examples given above were from actual research papers submitted by top university students--so you can't even fabricate an excuse of "maybe it's informal writing" to account for such ignorance/negligence. And they speak no other language but English. (The last one, "your welcome", was also seen on an official welcoming signboard at a popular tourist destination in Perth, Western Australia--I think it was along the lines of "your welcome to walk around...".)

Which goes to show, really, that almost all ESL organisations worldwide are up in the darkness that is their own bumholes when they operate by policies to only hire white people (preferably. if you're a Coloured you'll be considered as well, but only if you were born and bred in one of the Big Five: America, Canada, UK, South Africa, Australia) to teach because they (and the rest of the world) are under the impression that you can only have true expertise in the language if you are of the right colour or if your birth certificate carries the right Country of Birth. Brilliant marketing ploy, since the entire world is still ensnared by the (post-?)effects of colonialism. Illogical but powerful thing, this White Supremacy. Sometimes I even catch myself operating along that belief system even though I definitely know better--I guess it's because you're immersed in it from birth. Again, this is another story and I digress.

The influence of slang on spoken English is something that cannot be helped. In fact, I actually think it is something that invigorates any language and helps with their development, although admittedly some of the colloquial terms I've come across in English have made me highly uncomfortable (such as the tacking on of the plural 's' onto the 2nd person you, forming yous, in Australian English). So anyway. Ebonics is something I just can't work out, but it is really something. Almost like a whole other language, but maybe that's because I'm too old? Heh. It sounds quite cool actually, and what I like is that it takes full control and pride in itself. You sense no shame; it does not give others opportunity to belittle its culture, as is often seen in other non-standard forms of English. Also, the whole hiphop/rap culture is seriously the "cool culture" right now: if you can decipher the songs played repeatedly on the radios, you'll hear that it's patently obvious in the lyrics--subversive slang is being made mainstream.

However. A song was released recently: "The Way I Are" by Timbaland. When I heard the title, I felt faint. All of me, all of me just shriveled up in abject horror and consummate physical and mental pain, screaming "I'm melting, I'm meltinggggggg oh GOD take it awayyyyy"...and then I started bopping to the song. I didn't want to on principle. But I had to. You can't say no to its beat. I felt like I was cheating on my husband with the hot, adorably stupid poolboy.

I am sure young people everywhere who like this ridiculously catchy song will use, or are already using, this "I are" combination in their daily speech. I know it because I was a teenager not too long ago myself, and if I were not so horrified with this, I would probably use the phrase with glee (the reasons for which I shall leave to psychotherapists and sociolinguists out there). And I am helpless to do anything about it--talk about the unstoppable forces of media.

Sure, I sound like a pedantic nutcase, but everyone has their "thing". And un-fun, un-funny abuse of language is mine. So every time I feel that I need to be in a safe, dependable place where glaring errors won't jump out unexpectedly to stab my soft underbelly, I go to one these places:

• Online international newspapers
• TV or Radio broadcast of foreign language news (then I won't have to think about anything other than how lovely other languages sound)
• My collection of favourite books (because books are immortalised in print and can never suffer changes from their grammatical perfection)
• Gofugyourself - this is the most entertaining website, and they have the most impressively consistent, delightfully mistake-free collection of bitchy ramblings! I recommend it to all!

Snapshot

Claire is talking to me. I love our casual, comfortable friendship; we aren't especially close but we like and trust each other immensely. On paper it doesn't make much sense.

Claire is talking to me. We're sitting facing each other with her desk between us, and for once it's not hot. The ceiling fan is going whoop-whoop-whoop and gusts of air lazily circulate. My pinafore is not biting in at my waist. The sun is shining outside and the light that filters into the classroom lights up Claire's pretty face. I fancy that it even lights up her voice. If there is such a thing.

I am paying attention to Claire, but at the same time my eyes are drawn away from her face. His hand. Long artist's fingers connecting into a masculine, sun-brown palm. Long, artist's fingers that are gently, affectionately, tracing the parting in her hair. Back and forth, back and forth. It doesn't mess up her neatly parted hair, and all the while, Claire is talking to me.

I break the trance I can feel myself entering. They must never suspect. And so I forcefully direct my eyes back at Claire. I hope she doesn't notice that my voice is cracking slightly. I hope they don't notice that my heart is cracking slightly. But only slightly, and only at the edges. Because I know that this isn't Adult (Ever After) Love. Just a silly little crush.

My eyes can't help it. They flick downwards--but it's safe, because I keep my features arranged so it looks like a casual conversation's "look away, look back again" flit.

They aren't joined at the hip. They are sitting on separate chairs, and he's angled himself towards her--only their knees are touching lightly. They aren't using honeybunch voices, or making cow-eyes at each other. She's still one person, and she's talking to me. He is listening in, and unobstrusively radiating affection.

I marvel at the perfection of this moment. A beautiful snapshot in time, immortalised, as my mind freezeframes it and files it away. Funny how we do that, even for insignificant things.

There is a bitterish, panicky, sad taste in my mouth: I am confronted with the fact that yes, you can fancy yourself in love with a friend's boyfriend, and yet feel no jealousy...or even envy. An oxymoron, but true in this instant. And this anomaly, perhaps due to the lack of bitterness in the heart, brings forth the aforementioned physical sensorial bitterness in the mouth. Accompanied by the cracking of a voice mid-conversation, and the cracking (edges only) of a heart.

To love but not covet. There is such a thing--but it doesn't make much sense on paper.

Love by elimination

Let me discuss a matter that has been on my mind for yonks. The whole finding someone and being in a relationship thing is actually pretty difficult when you think about it. Which I have. Over the years I have fine-tuned my hypothesis (which means it is subject to correction), and currently, this is how I think things work in the World of Lurve. It appears to operate by chance/possibility and a process of elimination. Below is the breakdown:

First: eliminate the sex you are uninterested in (50% of the population down).

Second: eliminate the ones of unsuitable ages

Third: further eliminate the ones whom you are never going to meet (eg those existing in another social/economic circle, or another country)

Fourth: eliminate the ones of a differing sexual orientation

Fifth: eliminate the ones who are not married/have significant others, ie, are actually still available

Sixth: eliminate the ones who are "not at the right time in their lives", ie, unwilling to de-single-ify, or still damaged from previous relationships.

Seventh: actually, for reals, bump into and meet the men/women in question.

Eighth: eliminate the ones who have habits /characteristics / beliefs that you cannot abide by. (I would give examples from personal experience...but I won't for fear of offending. Common ones include things like smoking, extreme religious beliefs, alcoholism, lack of ambition, laziness, disgusting friends, horrible mothers...)

Ninth: eliminate the ones who cannot abide by YOUR habits / characteristics / beliefs. (Eg, you're too high-maintenance, too hot-tempered, too nice [I know, this isn't a typo], too bitchy, live too far away...)

[Notice how I did not include anything about how you should be lucky enough to meet someone with traits that you WANT, like the usual funny-smart-kind bullcrap. Dating around has taught me this: just because you have a list of traits you wish your future mate has, and you actually meet him and go out with him, the things you hate about him (and vice versa) will eventually drive you apart. I have now ditched my Dream Man list (it now comprises only of one item: My man must love me to bits.) in favour of a He Must Not list, which, tragically, grows with every man I date. I am convinced that one of the secrets to long-lasting relationships (besides love, duh) is the magical union of two people who just happen to be able to tolerate the other's shortcomings or eccentricities.]

Tenth: eliminate the ones you are physically unattracted to. Seriously. You have no idea how hard it is to make yourself kiss or hold hands with or even just look at someone who does not rock your yummy boat--unless of course, like me, you were once young and idealistic and wanted to believe that it's not about looks with you. Look. Once is bad. But imagine doing it forever just because you think you'll get used to it or "grow to like it". *shudder*

Eleventh: eliminate the ones who are physically unattracted to you. Because no one should ever be afflicted with having to bear the discomfort of extreme physical proximity or exchanging bodily fluids with someone who does not make their blood run hot. And, excuse my French, but no one deserves to be the Pity F**k.

[ Perfect on paper doesn't mean you'll actually be physically attracted to him, or vice versa. Shit happens, ya know? Also, as you know by now, I am a firm believer that physical attraction is central in actually getting a relationship started in the first place. Yes: I know it almost surely fades after that initial burst, but you need it to actually 100% want to be with the guy at first! Kudos and a congratulatory toast to those who are exceptions.]



According to my very professional calculations, after running it through the mill, we are each left with what seems to be a grand total of *drum roll please*

-43% of the population! Lovely.


All in all, a very depressing picture. I can barely fathom the magnitude of how crazy-hard it must've been for me to have met and ended up with my previous boyfriends. But it happened.


Now here is my question: If finding love were a game of (freaking slim) chances, why the hell are there so many couples out there?

(1) Is it that (*gasp*) it's really not as difficult as I think it is? I dunno. I have mulled over it and discussed it with friends (single and taken), and my arguments make more sense.

(2) Is it, as some of my un-single friends suggest, because it's all up to fate? I am sorry, but I think that's bull. I mean, sure, I think stuff like Fate can be real...but somehow if you blame everything on Fate then it just strikes me as merely being an excuse used to comfort ourselves when things go wrong in Life.

(3) Is it simply because there are a helluva lot of lucky people out there? I raise a sceptical, sceptical eyebrow.

(4) Is it because it's too lonely out there and many of these coupled up people have decided not to be picky? Like, just take whomever hits on them until a better one comes along, and so on and so forth until they meet someone who'll be with them til death do them part? A possibility, but still unfair to stereotype them so. (See, I know heaps of couples who are actually happy together and love each other.) Besides, how on earth did these people MEET each other in the first place, factoring in the problems I discussed above? I don't get it. It completely befuddles me.

Uh... seriously?

I am not quite sure how to react to this piece of information.

Do I hope that this little titbit of information (I refuse to call it a discovery or a breakthrough or anything similar because hey, heaps of times you think you find something important and then it turns out to be totally unfounded) is true and gives the field of Language Acquisition a little shake on its foundations? Do I rejoice at the possibility that I can one day go "YEAH, SUCK ON THAT UNCLE NOAM!" because I love it when the old man is proven wrong? (He is an unstoppable force--those theories he postulates! Can't they ever be simple enough to understand? Can't they every just fade into oblivion, obscure and unimportant in the field of Linguistics, instead of causing a huge abandonment of ideas pre-Chomsky? Can't they be written in NORMAL ENGLISH, and not like they are a mad caricature of himself?)

On the other hand. Do I go all disappointed because I, as a human being, may have been stripped of the very cool Language Acquisition Device (LAD*) that Noam Chomsky claimed all people (babies/kids, at least) have? Do I shrivel up a little bit inside because I may have suffered a demotion in my set-apart-from-animals-ness? Oh God forbid, if this is true, am I a tiny bit less special? LOL.

(*Up til now it has been a widely accepted theory. But is it because of human narcissism or the plain lack of a better explanation for our capacity for language?)

I do suspect though that this will fizzle out in disappointment. It'll probably become yet another unfounded , unconclusively-proven hypothesis--because no one can faze the Chomsky. :p ...Or my spirit may merely be broken and defeated. It would be pretty cool if it panned out. Just for something different. There is hope yet.