I was talking to my neighbor tonight about politics and the value of human life. She posited in so many words, that life is not worth suffering. In her mind, war is so evil it would be better for humanity to stop having children, to discontinue the species.
How can humanity be served by obliterating humanity? The kid in this video illustrates my point. Success and happiness in life is all about the attitude we approach it with and has very little to do with how much we suffer. Happy people are found in all walks of life the same as unhappy people. Many who suffer terrible setbacks are well adjusted, contributing members of society. Others in the very same circumstances would rather not have been born and some few would go so far as to end their lives because of their suffering disabilities.
I would find my neighbor's opinion about the value of human life appalling if it weren't for the fact that literally half of our culture believes in some variant the same as she does. That "Since we mercy kill animals that are suffering, why won't we offer the same 'service' to our loved ones?" There are elements of this mindset who believe wholeheartedly that this kid should have been killed when he lost his sight at the age of two to prevent his 'suffering' through life sightless. Granted, there are people suffering from terminal illnesses, in pain, and have no known chance of any recovery. So why not just let them die as they want to? I don't have all the answers to these terrible choices, but I do have huge concerns about 1. moving the line of decency. and 2. cutting short any opportunity to find that miracle cure for that person, or at least stabilizing their condition so that they don't continue to decline. The first concern is the biggest because it is detrimental to all of society. This week or this month or this decade, most of our culture would agree that a terminal illness is the point where we should draw that line. I don't happen to agree but the majority would.
Taking the evidence of abortion. For the sake of convenience, and personal choice, babies are being killed every day and this practice is sponsored by the state. Fifty years ago any mother and her 'doctor' would have been jailed by the state for the very same thing. So, fifty years into the future, will the state sanction killing two year olds because their mother didn't want them to suffer through blindness, or for themselves to have to raise a blind child? Will it be a viable choice for the parents of a mentally handicapped teenager? What about retirees without pensions who can't pay for their health care? What about homeless people? When we take upon ourselves the authority of God and start moving the line of decency, there is no authority left to correct, to say this far and no farther. No reason is required for abortions any longer because that line was moved by man. It went from 'only in the first trimester,' to 'in the first and second trimester,' and now at birth, the babies' brains are being sucked out while in the birth canal, and some are arguing that the option should remain open into the first year of life. If we move the line on other issues (mercy killing) in the future, no reason will be required for someone to decide who lives and who dies. Only that it falls within the parameters of what is best for.... who? the chooser?, the state? (gay marriage) will we be marrying two men and a chicken? two men and a six year old child? two brothers and their sister? a mother and her two sons? We scoff at the idea now, but we were scoffing at the idea of infanticide in the 1950's and 60's.
This isn't new, neither is abortion new to humanity. It was practiced as part of pagan religions during Biblical times and so was child sacrifice. One of their gods was a bronze statue with his arms held out in front of him. The statue was heated to glowing red and the mother or father would take their infant and set him or her in the arms of this glowing red statue and watch while their own child fried to death. Hitler and his Nazi's took the mentally challenged and had them gassed or shot. Other cultures killed the homeless. Without God, the line, the standard of conduct is as malleable as air. You can find some way to justify anything you want to do. We've already justified the murder of unborn children in our 'sophisticated' culture.
Back to my neighbor's mindset on life and suffering. All of life entails some measure of suffering. Birth is probably one of the most traumatic experiences of life. We struggle to learn to walk, falling often, and often experiencing pain in the process. Since it is painful to start life, to achieve the most basic of abilities, should we all stop trying, suicide because suffering is involved. Suffering is not pleasant, but it is one of the means by which we grow personally. Death and failure is much worse than suffering.
This is just as true culturally, should we not resist evil people who want to kill us? That would stop the war, that would stop our suffering, but it wouldn't stop the killing and the suffering of Muslims. They stone people to death, they kill each other in tribal and feudal wars.
'End all suffering' is the most foolish idea to come down the pike and it has saturated our culture. Of course there is suffering in life, and of course there is war. There will be war until God comes to take us out of here. Its in our nature. We have to fight our nature to achieve civilization, to have a community, to even have a family. It is in our nature to force our will on others. It is only by the understanding of every individual in a community, that we fight our natures to compete against other communities for survival. Through this achievement we have come to understand that cooperation is far more beneficial to everyone in a community than allowing our natures to rule us. We've learned when communities cooperate with each other to withstand bigger communities wills, cooperating communities benefit. The more people you have cooperating, the better the benefit. Finally, there are still communities in the world that still operate from the mentality of the stone age and would rather kill us or force us into their failing community structure via their religion.
We've come to regard this mindset as evil. Evil is as evil does. Killing and terrorizing to force your will on others is evil and that is exactly what the Islamo-Nazis are doing. Western culture did not first enter the Middle East with the idea that we are going to militarily change their culture and force our ways on them. We went over there as private citizens to do business in there culture. We were so successful at business that their culture began to change by virtue of their own success in that business environment. Some of them saw their own culture's change with successful trade as evil and violently opposed it. Threatening their own into submission, threatening the business people until they abandoned their trade markets, killing all business within their culture, they forced their will on their countrymen. Then, seeing all the other cultures growing and succeeding they decided all their failures were the fault of the West. Now, the ignorant people of the West are siding with the stone age people, believing every lie they tell. Our own media is an active party in the enemy's agenda to rule the world with this evil religion. Their holy book instructs them to lie to the infidel if that will empower them. I'm going to repost my article, "In Their Own Words" so you have easy access to the video of their most popular leaders speaking the truth about their intentions toward Western culture. They literally want to rule the world with their stone age power structure based on this evil, murdering religion.
If that's offensive to your politically correct indoctrination, consider this. In seven years and two wars, how many times have you heard moderate Muslims confess that global jihad is wrong? How many people of that faith stood behind the one making the confession? What percentage of the Muslim faith has spoken out against global jihad? I can tell you, because I've been listening and watching. If ten percent are actively involved with global jihad, not even 1/10 of one percent are saying a word against global jihad. Most speakers for Islam are excusing the jihadi actions or at best calling them mis-guided and acting against Western influence because it is corrupting their culture. I happen to agree that porn peddlers and homosexual activists are corrupting Muslims, they're corrupting Christians too. But Muslims aren't attacking porn peddlers or homosexuals. They name the corrupting influence as Christian Crusaders, harkening back 700 years to a period of retaliation for Muslim invasion into Europe. So the very things Christians are fighting in our own culture are the reasons this nation is being attacked by Muslims, not because of what Christians do or did. The abortions, the gay agenda, the porn peddling and on, and on So why does the Christian Right get the bad rap in this country? Because the liberal left doesn't want to admit their own responsibility for the mess we're in. They'd rather blame the military industrial complex, the oil industry, the stupid president who pulled off the biggest conspiracy ever by blowing up the World Trade Center, or Goldie Locks. I'm not sure how Goldie fits in the grand scheme of things but somehow, she is just as legitimate a target for blame as George Bush and the Christian Coalition.
The left no longer desire to obtain reason. The wisdom they seek is self serving. If knowledge requires that they accept blame, then knowledge is wrong. (revisionist history) If knowledge requires suffering and sacrifice to face threats, it isn't worth doing. If it is offensive, it is evil. And if knowledge of decency limits their desires, they aren't wrong, the limits are wrong.