What if God wants the gov't to choose? (5.00 / 7) (#44)
by teeheehee on Fri Sep 22, 2000 at 01:57:49 PM EST
What about the parents that worship Satan or believe in sacrifice to protect the people of their land (like those who would toss their virgin daughters into a volcano to appease the Gods).
People, from my perspective mind you, seem to believe in religion to explain what happens in Nature. Some may argue that it's God's will that these two were born joined, and even perhaps that it was His/Her plan to raise the debate of how to treat this kind of event altogether. A "test of faith". Where's the faith in letting two children die when you have the chance to save one? I feel so much for the parents in having this decision laid at their feet, and I'm not one to side with a government's authority on matters of most kinds, but it is intriguing to me that only certain religions are accepted above the law (as in choosing not to take medicine to cure ailments easily curable, but rather praying and succumbing to the ailment - sometimes not surviving the process).
I used to be a believer. I will not disclose my former religion, as it shouldn't matter. I believed. It was easy to trust that there was a reason for everything, and there may very well be, but it's impossible to discern how to interpret the events which take place. Did God(s) mingle with the primordial soup so that eventually we would have twins born joined at the hip in days when we have ethical questions being answered by the masses instead of the few at the top of the pulpit? Pretty good one, if it's true. I tend to side more with dealing with life as if we never had evolved a distinction between right and wrong, like other animals today. If you ask a chimp mother what God(s) meant by doing this, would it care? It would want it's children to survive, and with all hopes of surviving it's own lifespan. If it had just the technology to save one and not the other, or let both die, which would it decide on?
I don't mean to degrade the situation any with my analogies, but it seems to me that there's two very well defined evils trying to take control of these two children's lives.
- Religion: Too many of them to say which is right, and a lot of them conflict. If you believe in one you have an obligation to follow it, theoretically to the death, as you like the idea of living forever in a much nicer place than here. The difficulty is in itself the fact that there are so many and whichever one you choose you've got to live by and with all the repercussions that come with it... even if it requires watching your very own flesh and blood die by your decision.
- Government: We're a social sort of animal, and because we haven't worked out all our problems with each other (spawned by desires, beliefs, needs, wants, etc.) we need something to try and keep us from dying off as a race. I think our gene code would rather not like it if we killed ourselves off because of petty issues spawned from differing views of how to live life. At the same time governments have proven themselves to be infallable because humans run it, some of which (most, more likely) believe in one religion or the next, and it comes full circle to how different people think differently, and that causes strife.
What's my take on all this? I try to be a practical man. One can't be a practical man if their ethos lies in things written and preached by other men. All men and women are fallable, mind you, and it's very easy to confuse one's own desires and wishes with that of "higher authorities", especially if you have it ingrained that you have a better link to those higher authorities than everyone else and everyone else believes you. As a practical man I would spare one of the children. If it were God(s) testing me, I would fail. But my child would thank me for giving it the option to live, which would mean so much more to me than an apparition I have no evidence of existing. Like I said, I'm practical.
If God(s) are testing us in this way I have to follow MY beliefs on tests. They're not engineered properly, they don't test the right things, and the answers could not necessarily be among those available. If I were to translate this as the will of God(s), then I would interpret it as a sign that we don't have good enough medicine to a) determine the probability of this happening and decreasing it, b) have both children survive, c) prevent this from happening.
Nature tries to have us evolve, always. Sometimes what happens doesn't work, and if it doesn't then it can't propogate and happen again. In my eyes these tragic flukes happen, and it would be nice if it were a good evolutionary change and it all worked out, but where one seeks to progress then one needs to understand failure. Evolution doesn't work correctly right away, and even when it does it doesn't always continue.
Again my heart goes out to all who are directly involved in this matter, but everyone has a different mentality on how to approach these things, and it's that very difference in mentality that keeps us (as a race) from dying off completely (what if from now on all children were born as siamese twins and the ruling was that God's will was to be followed, after a while they'd see that doesn't always work). It's always very rough when two distinct ideologies collide like this. Who's right --- ? Everyone, and no one.
You want a solid answer, think one up yourself. You know if you don't like my answer you won't believe it anyways, and if you're troubled in figuring out which way to side on this you'll be easily influenced by whosever argument society claims to be the right one. I think we've all learned from history's teachings that society, as a whole, isn't always right (Inquisition, witch trials, persecution of the Jews, annhilation of almost every Native American). And while I'm right in my respects right now, I can't say I will choose the same way tomorrow... for who knows what tomorrow may bring?
(Discordia) :: Hail Eris!
Everything you've just read was poetry and art - no infringement!
[ Parent ]