Sunday, April 10, 2011

Child sacrifice: A political debate

A two-party system
A: For the sake of national security and prosperity, we must sacrifice ten children each month to Moloch. Moloch is an angry god, but fair. If we burn ten children alive on the temple altar, Moloch will ensure that we are well-fed and our enemies do not prevail against us. That is how things have been and we must observe the ancient traditions.

B: No, no, no, no – have you no heart? No conscience? You want to kill one hundred and twenty innocent children each year? Are you nuts? How horrible! Of course we should only sacrifice seven children each month. And we should make sure that the priests are well trained, that the sacrificial fire is sourced from sustainable wood and, for the sake of equal access, the victims are selected on a points-based system.
Image by CAC.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

Not sure what you're trying to get at here Byron.

We are happy enough to go to wars and send people barely older than children off there as they join up full of testosterone.

To be honest. If there was a magical God who would take all that away with the sacrifice of a few children instead of vast amounts of people, why not.

Then again how can a god be fair if it requires torture of a child as they die. It should not be necessary.

So, without further clarification on this moment's blog, it sound like whimsy from the OT that most of the world has moved on from already.

Therefore - please feel free to clafiry the direction you want for comments here or a link to what you yourself are commenting on.

Justin Denholm said...

Well, I assume the point is not that we should give child sacrifice another chance in modern society...!

The tension here is a great one. If you are a voter in this two party-system, do you vote for party B because they are 'moderate'? After all, they regulate child sacrifice and have some policies that limit the impact of the practice.

Neither party, though, recognises that child sacrifice is simply wrong. Does this mean we get behind damage minimisation, opt out of voting or look for some alternative ways to engage with this issue politically? Lots of parallels to be drawn out on economic and environmental issues!

byron smith said...

Anon - Justin is precisely on the money.

Justin - I couldn't have put it better. Thanks!

harry potter said...

yah! Politicians always think that we are ................

byron smith said...

In a similar vein...