Does that title unsettle you? Does it sound a little dangerous? It’s more than a provocative title; it’s a quote from a highly-educated person with a secular world-view. A secular world-view is what our society is opting for. The Judeo-Christian ethic (Christian world-view) according to the secularists is too intolerant and restricts our freedom to do what we want. A secular world-view might be popular but it could be dangerous. Alarm-bells go off when I hear statements like ‘dignity is a useless concept’. The logical and practical outworking of a secular world-view may be more destructive than we think.
The secular world-view teaches us the human race is the product of evolution. Our origin was through time and by chance, therefore, it’s logical to conclude that we answer to no-one. We are at the top of the evolutionary tree so we have the right to do what we want. There is no higher authority.
Societies that adopt a secular world-view are always dominated by the ‘rights’ issue. It’s our right to be gay, to blaspheme, to do what feels good, to abort our babies, to be promiscuous, to be irresponsible, to obey our passions, to be disrespectful, to eat people… What was that? To eat people! Surely I was exaggerating to make a point! I wish I were, but the sad truth is, cannibalism (the ultimate insult to human dignity), is growing on our evolutionary tree and the secular world-view unable to deal with it.
In March 2001 Armin Meiwes, a German computer technician, killed an engineer from Berlin called Bernd-Jurgen Brandes. After slaughtering the body he froze the flesh and over a number of months devoured around 20kgs. If this story hasn’t shocked you yet the sentence handed out certainly will. Armin received only eight-and-a-half years, but he should be out in four as he is a well-behaved, intelligent person. What is even more alarming is this: Armin is not serving any time for cannibalism! The only thing they could convict him on was a technicality involving assisted suicide.
This case wasn’t straight forward. It had an interesting twist to it that lifted the lid on the secular world-view and showed why it couldn’t convict a cannibal. You see, Mr. Brandes gave Armin permission to eat him and this unusual agreement was recorded on video. This act (even though it was cannibalism) occurred between two consenting adults so who are we to judge or force our opinion? This is not the first time we’ve seen this argument. It’s the same one the gay-rights movement uses to justify its life-style and further the cause. So let’s not discriminate here. Mr. Brandes and Armin were simply exercising ‘their rights as consenting adults’.
Putting that argument aside, aren’t there moral grounds to prosecute cannibalism? It would be nice to think so, but what people don’t realise is the secular world-view is missing some key words from their lexicon, words like objective morality. The secular world-view has no solid moral ground to stand on. The only thing it can offer is subjective morality, which, quite frankly is a joke. Subjective morality may work on paper, but not in reality as you will see by the next twist in this story.
Armin was not some half-dressed, mentally-disturbed freak wandering the streets with a piece of wood ready to knock-out someone and start munching on their leg. He was an intelligent law-abiding citizen who made his appeal to cannibalise someone over the internet. Mr. Brandes wasn’t the first person to respond and offer themselves to be eaten. A number of others went to Armin’s house but changed their minds as dinnertime approached so, without hesitation, Armin let them go. Armin was subject to his own morality (which is as valid as anyone else’s); he would not eat anyone who did not want to be eaten, which, in a strange way, is more respectful than the attitude of a rapist.
Subjective morality is quicksand. It can’t be anchored to anything but someone’s opinion. Morality must secure itself to something objective, something beyond humanity.
When you remove ‘objective morality’ there are a number of other words that go with it, not the least being ‘dignity’. Human dignity, that’s really the core issue of this case. Cannibalism is a direct assault on human dignity and the sanctity of life. Dignity has no part to play in a secular world-view as you will see in this quote by bioethicist Ruth Macklin which appeared in the British Medical Journal: ‘Dignity is a useless concept in medical ethics and can be eliminated without any loss of content’. Adding his weight to her comment was the great Arthur Caplan (his credentials are stunning), ‘There is no inherent property that confers dignity on a human being’. I don’t think these highly-educated people would have sat down with Armin to eat one of his ’special’ meals but they have certainly set the table and tucked his napkin in. [Quotes taken from an article by Michael Cook, The Courier Mail (4/2/04)]
Today’s post-modern atheists and those who espouse a secular world-view are shameless about their unsustainable ideologies like: ‘dignity is a useless concept’, ‘there is no such thing as evil, right or wrong’, ‘life has no meaning’. Their forefathers weren’t so brazen. Realising they had no moral ground to stand on, they tried to hang their atheistic ideologies on the robust structure the Judeo-Christian ethic had established in order to make them workable.
Reality tells us dignity is not a useless concept, evil does exist, and life does have meaning. The secular world-view is dangerous because it disconnects us from reality and allows evil to go unnamed, unchecked and free to devour us, literally. The Judeo-Christian ethic (the Bible) may not be popular with our lawmakers and the elite but it gives us objective morality. Why is this ‘intolerant’ morality so important? It is what makes life sacred, liveable, sustainable, enjoyable.