|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
Human Sacrifice Still Exists David C. Stolinsky This is not a description of a primitive tribe living in some remote jungle (excuse me, rain forest). It is not an account of people clad in animal skins, cutting the throats of captives in front of bizarre stone idols. No, it is a description of "educated" people living in America and Western Europe. It is an account of people in modern clothes, but nevertheless killing people in an attempt to placate their false gods. The false gods are environmentalism and liberalism. There is nothing so good that an excess of it isn't harmful. Even oxygen or water in excess can be lethal. But many environmentalists and liberals believe that you can't have too much of their pet agendas – a sure sign of fanaticism. They deny that such noble ideas could possibly cause harmful effects, and certainly not deaths. However, they hedge their bets. They rarely risk their own lives for their causes. They prefer to risk the lives of others. It's much safer that way. There are many examples; here are three. Banning large cars and SUVs. Environmentalists insist that we must "save the earth" from global warming. To do so, we must drive smaller cars – if we are allowed to drive any cars. But insurance data show that those in smaller cars are more likely to be seriously injured in a crash. (See http://www.carsafety.org/vehicle_ratings/ictl/ictl.htm) Yet these data are rarely mentioned in "consumer" magazines or the media. They report only laboratory crash data, which seem to show that small cars are as safe as large ones. As one expert explained, when you crash a car into a barrier, you in effect crash it into itself. So a small car may seem to do as well as a large one. But in real life, the average vehicle weighs over 4,000 pounds (not counting large trucks). One need not have a degree in engineering to visualize what happens when a 4,000-pound vehicle collides with a 2,500-pound vehicle. To further confuse consumers, large cars were renamed "very large," intermediate cars were renamed "large," compacts were renamed "family cars" and subcompacts were renamed "compact." It has been estimated that thousands of deaths could have been prevented if people had been in larger vehicles. But you will never see these figures in "consumer" magazines. If the truth-in-labeling law applied to magazines, "consumer" magazines would be renamed "environmental" magazines. The key question is this: Which is more important, the lives of their readers, or "saving the earth"? To put it another way, does the "earth" include human beings? Banning DDT DDT was banned in developed countries in the 1970s because it probably caused the shells of birds' eggs to weaken. Its use in developing countries continued sporadically. Obviously, we would not want our national emblem, the bald eagle, to become extinct. Obviously, we want to "save the planet." But DDT was an effective insecticide, especially for malarial mosquitoes. It is estimated that every year, 1 to 2 million people – many of them African children – die unnecessarily of malaria. That is, tens of millions of people have died needlessly since DDT was banned. (See http://www.acsh.org/press/releases/ddt061002.html) Conversely, DDT substitutes are more expensive and must be sprayed more often. If lobbyists for chemical companies had pushed for banning DDT, the media would have screamed that they were putting profits above the lives of black children. But because environmentalists did the lobbying, there is a deafening silence. Why? If putting an agenda above human life is wrong in one case, how does it become right in another? To put it another way, does the "planet" include black children? At the same time, swamps were renamed "wetlands," and draining them was made subject to severe penalties in this country. That is, the most effective agent against mosquitoes was banned, while destroying their breeding places was hampered. But there's more. The West Nile virus causes an untreatable infection of the brain. Like malaria, it is transmitted by mosquitoes. Since 1999 it has been spreading across America. So far this year there have been 145 cases and eight deaths. Even worse, a federal court recently required a difficult-to-obtain special permit before any pesticide is placed in navigable water. According to experts, this will severely hamper mosquito control at this critical time. (See http://www.mosquito.org/index.html and download "Position Paper.") The virus is the same strain as one found in the Middle East, raising the question of bioterrorism. But in any case, it is spreading. Some have proposed re-introducing DDT, at least temporarily. That would be embarrassing. Will we allow its use to save perhaps a few hundred of our lives, after we opposed its use to save millions of African lives? That really wouldn't look good, even for those who are "saving the planet." Yet if we don't allow DDT, and if we don't drain "wetlands," who will take the blame for our dead? Surely not the courts or the activists. In other words, when the "earth gods" were satisfied with African sacrifices, we were glad to oblige. But when they demand that we sacrifice our own, we hesitate. Perhaps our "faith" just isn't strong enough. Banning Guns Professor Gary Kleck showed that guns are used much more often to thwart crimes than to commit them. Yet you'd never know it from the media. For example, when a student went on a shooting spree at a law school, he was stopped by two armed students. But Dr. John Lott found that of 280 news stories, only four mentioned that those who stopped the attack were armed. One leading newspaper said that they "tackled" the killer, and another that they "helped subdue" him. Lott also showed that in states where law-abiding citizens are allowed to carry guns, violent crimes decreased. Conversely, after guns were banned in Britain and Australia, violent crimes (including gun crimes) rose alarmingly. That is, overly restrictive gun laws cost lives. But the activists learned nothing from these experiments. Anti-gun activists in Britain now claim they never thought that crime would fall – they only wanted to end the "gun culture." In other words, if your experiment has obviously failed, change the objective. Instead of reducing the violent crime rate, which is easily measured, activists now assert that their real objective was reducing the "gun culture," which can't be defined, much less measured. Therefore, gun control laws can't be shown to have failed. An idea that can't be disproved by any available evidence is an irrational belief, not a logical conclusion. But we're almost as bad as the Brits. Nearly a year has passed since 9-11, yet we still can't bring ourselves to arm pilots, a measure that would clearly have had a chance to prevent 9-11. We trust pilots to fly planes loaded with passengers, but not to carry guns – though many pilots are retired or reserve military officers. We babble about the risk of a stray bullet injuring a passenger or damaging the plane. But in a colossal contradiction, we scramble jet fighters to shoot the plane down if necessary. Here's the really annoying thing. When it suits their agenda, environmentalists and liberals are extremely solicitous of human life. They oppose capital punishment of convicted murderers, because of the minute chance that an innocent person may be executed. They oppose the war on terrorism, because civilians may be killed. If it will "save just one life," they are for reducing pesticide residues in food below the already minute levels. If it will "save just one child," they are for banning guns completely. Yet when it comes to safer cars, preventing malaria and encephalitis, or defense of self and family, suddenly this concern for human life goes out the window. The activists or the media never say that larger cars should be built, that DDT should be re-introduced, or that gun ownership should be encouraged – "if it will save just one life." Another glaring contradiction goes unnoticed. We tried to make airliners peanut-free zones to avoid allergy, and gun-free zones to avoid anxiety. We neglected to make them terrorist-free zones, and over 3,000 died horribly. But apparently they died free of peanut allergy, and free of anxiety over armed pilots. In an effort to "save just one life," we lost over 3,000 lives. Is this an exaggeration? How many murder victims – especially women and minorities – die each year because of overly restrictive gun laws? How many people – especially Africans – die each year of malaria or encephalitis because of overly restrictive environmental laws? How many people die each year because they were persuaded to drive small cars? How many thousands die each year to "save just one life"? In an effort to avoid all risks, we ignored the worst risks. With guns, large vehicles, pesticides and many other agendas, the process has all the characteristics of fanaticism:
The Bible describes how the Lord taught us to abolish human sacrifice roughly 4,000 years ago. It is past time that we heeded the lesson. Gods that demand human sacrifice are false and deserve contempt, not worship. Dr. Stolinsky is retired after 25 years of teaching in medical school. He writes from Los Angeles on political and social issues. He may be contacted at dcstolinsky@prodigy.net.
Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
A product that might interest you:
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
| All Rights Reserved © 2008 NewsMax.Com |